3 Machines, same pads, same compounds, gloss testing.

J

JohnKleven

New member
I have been wanting to perform a test showing the actual gloss reading difference between a rotary polisher, a dual action counterbalanced polisher Cyclo, and a dual action forced rotation polisher FLEX for a while now. I finally had some time to perform this test. This car belongs to an employee of mine, and he hadn't polished his own car in two years or so. First is a picture of the before, and the car definitely had uniform scratching all over the hood. I used orange CCS pads with SIP on all machines, and white CCS pads with Super Finish on all machines. Hood was of course fully clay barred prior to polishing, and cleaned after polishing with Menzerna Top Inspection. I worked all machines and compounds until fully broken down just like I would in real world use, but some RIDS remained. Results are as follows.





IMG_2041.jpg
Before



IMG_2047.jpg
FLEX



IMG_2048.jpg
Cyclo



IMG_2046.jpg
Rotary





The rotary finished with the highest gloss readings, followed by Cyclo, and Flex. I was not surprised by the results, and there is definitely a difference that can be noticed with the eye. The Rotary of course also removed a lot of the small pitting in the paint that was not removed with the other two machines.
 
Thanks, I did not take a before reading, as it can be all over the place when the paint is in bad shape. I would probably read 40-60 gloss units on the hood due to inconsistent oxidation.
 
Great test John! Thanks for taking the time to do it.





A lot to ask but it would be nice to see the test go a step further by wet sanding the paint followed by the basic refining steps using just one tool in order to get similar baseline readings. Then do the final jeweling to the paint with the different tools using the same zero cut pads and some PO85RD. I'm sure the rotary will still come out ahead, but it would be interesting if it could be done on both a Honda and an Audi to see how they differ. :)





Rasky
 
Great test! I'm curious if the results would be different if you used a PTG and removed a uniform amount (within reason of course) of clear across the board.
 
JohnKleven- Ah, glad you got a chance to do this, I've been looking forward to it!



Yeah, I too think I see a diff between the finish a Flex 3401 leaves and what I can attain with my other polishers but without the glossmeter, well...you know. Could you readily *see* a diff between the Cyclo and the rotary with your naked eye?



I too am wondering about how the readings (well, the Cyclo/rotary ones at least) would compare if both finishes were corrected to the same extent.



I'm not bashing your test in the least, so please don't get me wrong...but when we discussed this stuff in that other thread, I was wondering how the Cyclo and the rotary would compare when used to final-polish paint that was already corrected to the point of being basically flawless.
 
I think I could definitely see a difference between the 3 with the naked eye, but what really made the rotary stand out is the removal of heavier scratches, and also the removing of some pitting in the paint. It would sure take a very long time to get the same correction from a cyclo, but I still believe the rotary leaves a higher gloss. Obviously this paint is not very high quality on this Chrysler, but on an even softer paint like a black Bentley for example, IMHO the rotary will still finish better. The amount of correction between the Cyclo and Flex was very close. The smaller pads on the Cyclo with nice CCS pads really gives it some nice correction ability. The factory Cyclo pads definitely don't correct as well as the CCS pads.





John
 
JohnKleven- Thanks for the additional info.



Yeah, no question in my mind about the rotary doing better correction for the time/effort involved; I simply don't get the same, speedy results via Flex/Cyclo/Griot's/etc. that others do, even with the KBM. When I don't want to use the rotaries I simply wetsand the nasty stuff rather than spend forever on it.



On the subject of ultimate gloss, I can't help but wonder how various things like polish/pad/paint/rotary skill factor in :think: But I guess what matters here is that (as you predicted), you're getting the best results via your rotary.
 
Accumulator said:
JohnKleven- Thanks for the additional info.



Yeah, no question in my mind about the rotary doing better correction for the time/effort involved; I simply don't get the same, speedy results via Flex/Cyclo/Griot's/etc. that others do, even with the KBM. When I don't want to use the rotaries I simply wetsand the nasty stuff rather than spend forever on it.



On the subject of ultimate gloss, I can't help but wonder how various things like polish/pad/paint/rotary skill factor in :think: But I guess what matters here is that (as you predicted), you're getting the best results via your rotary.
Click to expand...



I would say skill level and understanding plays the most part when acheving any high quality finish! Not like Johns a rookie here. John pretty cool rightup for sure. The one thing I would like to see is that exact same readings done on perfectly leveled paint. It obvious that light will be refracted more on paint that isn't perfectly cut and leveled. I wonder what would happen persay if you took a whole hood and sanded it with 3000 to remove as much imperfections as possible, then compounded with rotory, and finished the paint entirely to the point it was perfect with out burnishing. Then do this test. then alcohol wipe down everything? DO you understand my mumble jumble here?
 
That could be an interesting test, but won't be doing that on a Chrysler anytime soon. I will try this when I get a good wetsanding project. I will still put money on a rotary being glossier, and also looking better in the sun than any d.a.





John
 
sigh =[ I guess I'll be looking into getting attachments for my rotary after all...figure buying a new rotary all together might be much for me =[
 
Barry Theal- I think you and I are thinking the same thing, but I dunno if I'd start with a 3K finish since I find that to be a *little* of a rough starting point for machines like the Cyclo/Griot's/etc. Yeah, I know and I take out even 2K with those machines too, but for this test I'd rather start with something where "correction" isn't part of the picture at all, keeping it all about the "jeweling" effectiveness of those machines (where I bet a rotary *IN THE RIGHT HANDS* will probably still come out on top).



I'm just curious about what I might be missing out on by not being a rotary-Meister, not that I actually polish much at all these days (sheesh, threads like this make me think my vehicles must look dreadful by Autopian standards :o ).



JohnKleven- Heh heh, I can't help but think that here you went to the trouble to do that test and some of us are already after you to do it again differently :rolleyes:



On the Cyclo, do you think that the counterbalance upgrade makes a functional diff with regard to how well it finishes, or is it merely a matter of being more user-friendly?
 
Well, I decided to check out autopia once again... :nervous2:



I think this was a great idea for a test... just not buying that the rotary will deliver a better result than another machine, or even hand applied liquids for that matter.



All other things being equal, it comes down to amount of paint removed, the finishing capability of the liquid and applicator, and the expertise level of the dude doing the work.



As for that gloss meter? It's useless to you! Can I have it pleeeeze? Love it, :xyxthumbs, and jealous :aww:.
 
Kevin Brown said:
... the finishing capability of the liquid and applicator, and the expertise level of the dude doing the work...
Click to expand...



Dag-nabit! Pulled an amateur skimming of your info... "same pads, same compounds".



Even though the material that touches the surface may be the same, the surface area variance can make a big difference in defect removal (as you alluded to), as well as finishing.



As most of us know, pads can be optimized to work on specific machines, even if the material is the same. Shape, thickness, and diameter make a difference. The type of backing plate we decide to use also affects performance.



Not trying to discount your efforts at all, and not doubting your abilities... just looking forward to a good discussion.



Thanks.
 
1st off, I love premise behind the test; however I feel its results are user driven, not end results driven. There are way too many variables that cannot and should not be wrangled as the "end all, be all" of this experiment that some would like to label or conclude as per the findings.



Can a rotary finish better than a dual action machine......maybe on some paint with some polishes? Per my discussion with a well qualified source at the manufacturer level (that will remain nameless), paint hardness, which can be quite difficult to measure unless you have the appropriate tools (i.e. paint hardness tester), will play a huge factor in the final gloss level one is able to achieve. Soft paint (especially fresh) *can* have a tendency of reacting better (in terms of gloss levels) with a rotary buffer. But, when the playing field (surface) is harder, a dual action machine can and will produce optimal results when paired with the right components (user/product/geometry of the machine).



With this test, you chose products (SIP/PF) that IMHO don't work well to level the surface when used with a DA. In your case, I'm sure you are able to level more paint (hence producing a flatter surface as you stated) by increasing the speed of the machine(which I remember you stating prior that you make a practice of working certain Menzerna products such as SIP @ 3000 rpms http://www.autopia.org/forum/pro-details-before-after/128795-1957-thunderbird-full-wetsand.html ). This also can and will drastically skew the results as an unparalleled force is utilized to correct the defects primarily. The gloss one is able to achieve after is dependant on the defects still remaining within the surface which can take away from the surface reflection being measured. Also, when you tested, I don’t recall you taking multiple measurements along the surface and then averaging them out for comparison purposes. With this test it could be construed as biased if you measured at a low/high variance area to the others.
 
Kevin Brown said:
... just not buying that the rotary will deliver a better result than another machine, or even hand applied liquids for that matter...
Click to expand...



Double dag-nab it! I meant that it won't deliver a better result simply because it's a rotary- obviously judging by your meter readings it was the case this time. BOING! Rusty I guess...



Anyway, as an example, what would happen if we ran the same test using one-inch diameter pads?



Or, if in the rotary process, we were capable of moving the machine in a way that mimicked the movement of either the Cyclo or the Flex (moving the machine in an offset manner, creating a 5/16" eccentric motion as we buffed)?



Or, if we ran all three machines so that they all created a similar pad motion and pad speed? Could it be done? Hmmm...



Since the Cyclo has no trigger, and operates at a driveshaft speed of 3,000 RPM, we would have to use that number as our operating speed. Since the motion created by the Cyclo converts the driveshaft motion into one that moves each backing plate 3,000 times per minute around the driveshaft (creating a 5/16" diameter orbit as it moves), it's effectively creating 3,000 orbits per minute. As for actual pad rotation, we would have to find a pad and dial-in user applied pressure so that the random pad rotation would match the forced rotation speed of the Flex. Then adjust for machine-weight variances.



Since the Flex operates using a 20:1 driveshaft speed to backing plate rotation ratio, and through its gearing it creates an net of 10:1 backing plate orbit to backing plate rotation ratio, we'll set the machine speed to create 3,000 orbits and 300 revolutions per minute.



Now we'll need to find a pad that allows the Cyclo to rotate it at 300 RPM (or 5 times per second), while we use a similar applied downward pressure for all three machines. We can use the identically-sized pad for the Flex and the rotary, since they use forced rotation to drive the pad. So, diameter and height don't really matter, as long as the pad allows the Cyclo to create 300 RPM. It needs Velcro® loop material all the way to the edge. More on that later.



Oh yeah- we'll have to control the polishing area tightly! We have to be sure that equal amounts of passes cross the painted surface for each machine. If we hold all three machines completely still and turn them on, the Cyclo and the Flex will affect a 5/16" larger area than a rotary will, so our polishing area will have to equal pad diameter + 5/16". Well, that means that we can only judge the area that one of the Cyclo's pads will be polishing. Guess we know the maximum diameter pad we can use, taking into account the size that the Cyclo can accommodate. Since most guys use a 4" diameter pad, I suspect we can shoehorn a pad only a little bit larger in diameter (I don't own a Cyclo- somebody else will have to measure the shaft-to-shaft distance for us).



Dang, this may be to much to handle for even the most spectacular paint polishing guru! It must be done this way to be fair. Sorry. :xyxthumbs



What's left? Oh yeah- the rotary. Hmmm. The rotary machine is going to have to have a finger trigger or be air-powered, as we have to run it at 300 RPM. That's the easy part. The hard part is finding a guy that can move it in a manner that mimics the Flex and the Cyclo!



:soscared:



Hey- remember that application method plays a huge part in overall performance, and we need to negate variations in user-to-user method in order to create a fair comparison. Any takers? Non of you guys can move the rotary so that it creates a 5/16" diameter orbit around an imaginary axis? What are we here- a bunch of girlie men?!



Ah, no sweat. We'll just place the pad off center to the backing plate 5/32", effectively creating a 5/16" offset. Whew. Dodged that bullet.



All that's left to standardize now is the backing plate material. Let's use one that is rock solid, does not bend, and has Velcro hook all the way to the edge, so it fully supports the pad (remember the pad?). This way, we negate its effects. Weight does not matter, as we'll be keeping the pad laser level to the surface, and we will have already used it while determining the ideal pad for the Cyclo (remember- we had to find a pad that allowed the Cyclo to rotate the pad 5 times per second).



All set! Now we've got a fair test. Any takers? :lol
 
I can agree that it could be a more fair test this way, but these are more of the ACTUAL numbers achieved with these machines in their factory condition. I will say that the FLEX is a very brute machine, it vibrates, and you need to hold the machine with some force to operate it properly, it wants to walk from side to side if not used properly, and to really deliver full performance, you need to press down firmly to get a good cut from it taking advantage of the forced rotation. The Cyclo however benefits from having the small 4" buffing pads giving it a nice cut, but the machine is virtually vibration free, and IMHO the "best built" machine of the bunch, and can be used with one hand (showing the smoothness of the machine). I use a DeWalt rotary buffer, which I find is a very smooth polisher, although heavy has the best variable speed trigger of the bunch. If I were to turn on the cruise control on a DeWalt, I could also use this machine with one hand showing the smoothness of the machine, and it never fights you trying to walk from one side of the hood to another like the FLEX. In my opinion, if you can use a rotary polisher properly it will yield the best results in the quickest amount of time, and the Cyclo is the best machine for someone not quite ready for a rotary polisher. The FLEX also has it's place in the lineup at our shop.



David Fermani - You mentioned the SIP is not the best choice for a D.A., what would you recommend? I will sometimes use Power Finish on light colored cars if someone is looking for an inexpensive one step polish.







John
 
JohnKleven- I don't mean to be a pain, but I wonder if my "do the Cyclo's counterweights make a functional difference?" Q got lost in all this discussion :confused: Dunno if you've used the older/non-counterweight Cyclo for a comparison, but I'm just wondering if I'd appreciate any results-related benefits from fitting one of my Cyclos with the counterweights or not...



Kevin Brown said:
... diameter and height don't really matter, as long as the pad allows the Cyclo to create 300 RPM. It needs Velcro® loop material all the way to the edge. More on that later...
Click to expand...



Hi, Kevin, nice to see you posting. Been thinking I oughta call you some time (if I can find your number) but I figure you're as busy as I am!



With regard to the Velcro extending to the edge, what about the use of Edge adaptors/pads on the Cyclo? I've only used my Edge system pads on the Cyclo for a little work, but I suspect there's a bit more "give" than with the conventional Velcro-backed pads (and all of my Cyclo pads have Velcro almost to the very edge, some *are* right to the edge of the foam); it just doesn't seem like the machine's motions are transmitted quite the same but yeah, that's just a subjective user's impression. Despite this "give"/flexing the machine seems to give the same results with both types of pads (not that I'm using it for serious correction), perhaps the overlapping pad effect mitigates any such issues :nixweiss

Guess we know the maximum diameter pad we can use, taking into account the size that the Cyclo can accommodate. Since most guys use a 4" diameter pad, I suspect we can shoehorn a pad only a little bit larger in diameter (I don't own a Cyclo- somebody else will have to measure the shaft-to-shaft distance for us).
Click to expand...



Speaking of the overlapping pad effect....even the variation between various " 4" " pads can cause (admittedly minor) issues in this regard. The Cyclo's two pads usually bump against each other just a bit when perfectly centered (and/or with the Edge system) and when this bumping is excessive (slightly oversized pads, or imperfectly mounted ones) it can become so severe as to cause enough pad-to-pad contact that you get foam shedding, which can be a bit of an issue with certain foams. So I wouldn't expect larger pads to be feasible on the Cyclo. Using smaller pads would, of course, preclude the overlapping-pad effect; they don't overlap enough to allow for much leeway in that regard.
 
No sweat, John. Not suggesting that you actually DO this sort of test.

Just wanted to emphasize the importance of the application method (pressure, angle, movement, etc.) and the machine "setup" (speed, pads, backing plates, and even machine offset).



While you and I certainly understand this fact, I reckon that some newbie could see your gloss meter readings, read your post, and conclude that a rotary is the end-all, be-all polisher.



For some, maybe. For others, maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top