Dylan@RUPES

^ Correct - you're comparing rotary and dual action random orbital so not really apples to apples. Both great tools, but intended for different purposes and user skill sets. Another option is the BigFoot Nano with iBrid Technology. That would give you 2 orbital movements, plus rotary, and 2 pad size options.

3 suggestions: 1) The weight of the machine only 2) Speed setting of 3-4 3) Increase your arm speed. I don't subscribe to the "X lbs of pressure" idea - unless you've got a digital scale built into your palm you'll never keep that consistent and pressure is not required with the Mark II BF tools. This is also why a flat faced foam is preferred for the BF system - it won't require heavy pressure to keep contact with the surface like pads with face designs will. There's also an aspect of the foam composition that plays a role - less rigid foams generate internal friction as the pad deflects and twists under the load (especially with pressure). Also have to consider the use of foams that are non-reticulated (Orange) and their lack of airflow. Factory BF foams are a more rigid formula and all large reticulated (open cell) designs that promote compound migration and airflow to reduce surface temps. There might be more factors at work here, but one thing you don't want to do if you have a heat problem is apply pressure.

I am referring to the Cyclo ones specifically, but probably best to take discussions of non-Adams products to email out of respect for the forum rules. Dylanv@rupesusa.com

Pros and cons - PRO: its WAY faster than traditional clay and lasts much longer. I have a set that has decon'd more than 15 full vehicles and a Peterbuilt and they still have some life to them. CON: even the fine grade will introduce some small amount of marring on softer finishes, so I generally do not recommend it for a car thats already corrected and you're just doing maintenance on. Its not a problem if you plan to polish anyways b/c the marring introduced is less than the average swirl mark in depth.

Out of respect for the forum rules probably best to email me: dylanv@rupesusa.com

There are, but contact me outside of the forum as I the pads for the Nano are an item that Adam's does not sell and Inwant to respect the rules. Dylanv@rupesusa.com

What model is your BigFoot polisher? 15 or 21? ES (first generation) or MarkII? What speed were you running the machine at when the delamination happened?

If I may offer up some advice (I might know a thing or 2 about the tools ) It really depends on how detailed you want to get... the mini will get a ton of areas you wouldn't reach with another tool and for most people the remaining areas aren't going to be areas of major concern. That being said - the Nano will get into every space the mini will and more, plus the added versatility of running brushes, battery power, 3 movement types, etc. The Nano easily justifies the price tag for what it can do... the challenge is deciding are those additional features worth nearly 2x the price for you. It really does fall into the category of professional tools - if you're doing this as a profession its a no brainer, but if you're simply a hobbyist then its entirely possible the Mini will do all you need it to.

My pleasure Dan - only made sense given the Adam's company commitment and enthusiasm for American made products. This group, more than any, I knew would be excited to hear about it. Plus, we're only a short drive away from HQ so its relevant for that reason as well.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: BigFoot Production Officially Starts in the USA Longmont, Colorado – July 27th, 2016 - Continuing their commitment to growth in the US market, RUPES announced today the beginning of production for a number of their popular BigFoot electric polishers at their North American facility. This event marks the first time that the primary manufacturing of the class-leading BigFoot tools will occur outside of Italy. “It’s truly an honor.” says Chip Case, General Manager for RUPES USA. “The investment and the faith in our team here in the US to build these tools shows just how committed to supporting the US market RUPES is.” Manufacturing tolerances and standards set in Italy are maintained in the Colorado facility, including strict quality control. LHR21ES and LHR15ES tools from the US factory have already begun to make their way into the market with the Mark II versions and other BigFoot models to follow by the end of Q4 2016. After bursting onto the scene about 5 years ago, the RUPES BigFoot family of tools have become the preferred option for professionals and enthusiasts. With manufacturing of the tools now a reality in the US, the company will be able to provide even higher levels of service and produce tools to meet the ever increasing demand. RUPES SpA is a one of the leading manufacturers of specialty electric and pneumatic tools as well as vacuum dust extraction systems for a variety of industries including detailing, body shop, industrial, woodworking, and marine. PRESS CONTACTS: International - RUPES S.p.A. Vermezzo (MI) - Italy Francesco Ginocchio | Marketing Manager E-mail: fginocchio@rupes.it Phone: +39.02.94694.304 North America - RUPES USA, Inc. Longmont, CO - USA Dylan von Kleist | Marketing Manager E-mail: dylanv@rupesusa.com Phone: +1(970)535-0100 ext 322

There are a number of knock offs on the market of our BigFoot polishers, pretty much carbon copies under their colored plastics and rubber accents. The difference is that we actually build ours... every component including even the winding of the motor is done in house and based on our design. With the knock offs you're generally looking at a copy that doesn't meet very precise engineering tolerances (because its just a copy) and also uses off the shelf parts from other kinds of tools. With a tool orbiting at such a big distance and high speed the precision and quality of every single component will be stressed to the max - as a percentage of tools in the market we are proud to have EXTREMELY low failure rates because of our level of precision. Why does the motor matter? We tune our motors for the task they're doing. So in the LHR21 or LHR15 for example, the motor is specifically tuned for polishing operations at speeds ideal for that task, designed, built, inspected, and assembled in house. This is why our BigFoot tools we only need to consume 500w of power to out perform the knock offs that use a 900w grinder motor. You can learn more about this in the write up I posted: http://www.adamsforums.com/topic/30044-power-vs-consumption-why-bigger-isnt-always-better/ Brands that knock off products are about the lowest form of operation IMO. Their low quality copies of precision engineered innovative technology undermine the industry and supporting that kind of action has a detrimental impact that hits vendors, distributors, professionals, and DIY enthusiasts. Support INNOVATION not IMITATION. (for anyone interested in seeing a tiny glimpse of the factory operations Larry Kosilla did a great video on it last year. You should be able to find it on google) Adding to that... earlier this year RUPES shifted production of 120v LHR21ES and LHR15ES tools over to our US facility. This means that at this exact moment BigFoot tools are being assembled right along side Cyclo polishers in our Longmont factory. This has not been made a public announcement just yet as there are other big announcements that will be coupled with it, but I can confidently say now that many RUPES tools are now built here in the USA. This also gives us the ability to provide factory level support for everything we sell. Not some 3rd party tool repair place, so if your tool ever needs to come in for repair it will be done by professionals that build the tools using factory parts and it will be done quickly - usually the same day it arrives here. None of the knock-offs can claim the same and are often pumped out of one of only a handful of the same Chinese factories, just with a different color or shaped plastic on the outside. But I digress - I'll comment on this as a comparison between the LHR15 and the Cyclo Model 5 Pro as that would be most relevant with those being the tools Adam's stocks/supports: The Cyclo is certifiably the lowest vibration orbital polisher in the industry thanks to its dual headed design. Basically the whole thing is one big counterbalance. This provides the most operator comfort and lowest fatigue. Its also, as far as I'm aware, the last tool in the business that is made using cast metal housings. This only adds about 1lbs of weight over plastic tools, but provides a much higher level of durability. The knock on the Cyclo, if there is one, is the lack of power... its perfect for common swirl removal, but in some cases it will lack the 'oomph' to do more serious defect removal and because of its overall lower operating speeds it can tend to be slower thru a process. I would recommend the Cyclo for anyone maintaining their personal vehicles or who isn't in need of heavy/fast correction work. NOTE : the Cyclo was a 'bigfoot' even before the acquisition by RUPES - since the 1940's the Cyclo has had a 16mm orbit on each head... thats 2x the orbit size of a Porter Cable, so its correcting power comes mostly from the stroke and not the speed, however both things do play a role. Now the LHR15ES and LHR15II are going to give you the power to take on virtually any level of defect depending on your pad/polish combo. They will have extremely low vibrations levels, honestly the only lower vibration tool is the Cyclo. The higher speeds and torque of the LHR15II mean that at speed 4 you have all the correcting power you need for most jobs, but you can ramp up to speed 5 or 6 when the need arises. The LHR15 is definitely more of a professional tool capable of heavy correction as well as fine polishing depending on how its used. The ES comes in at a great price point now if you don't need the additional 30% power, but if you do the Mark II provides class leading performance at every single level. Any other questions about BigFoot or Cyclo don't hesitate to ask. Cheers!

Your tool is 100% covered by the factory warranty still. Send me a direct email: dylanv@rupesusa.com I'll arrange to get the tool to us, inspected, repaired or replaced free of charge.

A lot more to it being a flashlight with the RUPES name on it - it's a light specifically tuned for paint inspection. I covered the specifics in this thread: http://www.adamsforums.com/topic/30495-swirl-finder-light/

It should. After you've removed the 'dead' layer you're back down to fresh hard-cured paint that won't absorb like the oxidized top layers did. Going forward any polishing you do should also be without issue as the paint is not going to absorb anything. Sanding certainly isn't to be taken lightly, but in situations like this where repeated compounding steps are required to break through the 'crust' of the dead paint a P3000 stage is actually a less aggressive approach in some cases. A difficult concept to wrap your head around, I know, but its something we cover in our paint correction classes for the BigFoot system.

Likely had very little to do with ambient conditions or the product and everything to do with the condition of the surface you were working on. Based on the description you had very severely oxidized/chalky paint, correct? You were contending with a residue control problem (dead clear being removed) and a porous surface holding onto the polishes. When paint is severely oxidized its not uncommon for it to almost absorb liquids that are used on it. Products containing silicones and waxes are usually the worst. Not much you can do in terms of preventing it other than go with a mechanical removal (pure abrasive) process in the early stages (P2000 or P3000 sanding) before jumping to the chemicals. While many people will quiver at the idea of jumping in with sandpaper on a very oxidized finish, the reality is with a fine grit you are actually probably REDUCING the overall material removal vs. a compounding process as you'll remove the dead material and only be left with light correction work. Food for thought.

Coming from a background in professional detailing and now working for a company that is engaged entirely in surface restoration theres just a couple of things to consider: The more aggressive the operation the more stress is placed on the pad - heavy correction work beats up pads, so your compounding phases will eat up pads rather quickly, so if you have some pretty serious defects to work on have lots of spare pads. The more aggressive the operation the more residue management you have to contend with - as you are doing heavy correction work your pad is being loaded up not only with compound, but the byproduct of abrasive actions (clear coat and paint). To remove deep defects you need to remove more material, the more material you remove the more your pad loads up, the more your pad is loaded the less effective it is. Its considered best practices to replace those pads more frequently during the heavy cutting phases. Keep those 2 things in mind as you decide how many pads to have on hand. At a MINIMUM no one should have fewer than 2 of every pad just out of common sense. If you drop a pad or a pad comes apart you need to have a backup at a minimum to keep going. If you are planning heavy correction work (i.e. - our first full paint correction) I recommend at least 4 pads for your cutting phases so you can at least divide the car into 1/4 chunks and work it that way. For your finishing work you are doing much less aggressive work, and removing far less material, so 2 pads for your finishing is generally enough. Also consider though - you will do fine polishing work more often as a touchup exercise (at least you should) so if thats the case then having a couple of spares on hand isn't a bad idea either. The one place I think you can generally get away with 1 or 2 pads is your LSP steps (glazes, waxes, sealants) - its not cutting any material so you have no residue management to deal with, the action is low stress on the pad so no issues there, and in the worst case you can jump to hand application if you lose a pad in the process (not an option in the cutting and finishing phases). My 2 pennies worth - that and $6 will get you a latte at Starbucks. Cheers! -DvK

(-) Reduce speed: Speed builds heat and when you have lots of ambient heat less speed is helpful. Try working as low as speed 2 or 3 (-) Reduce the working area: If you're taking on whole panels at a time reduce your working area to 1/2 or 1/3 of a panel. (-) Reduce work times: Allow time between sections for the pad to cool, maybe address another process for a few minutes, then come back to polishing. (+) Increase SWA use: Use of an SWA (supplemental wetting agent) can help a ton. I recommend distilled water in high heat situations. Other options containing wax, like a quick detailer, can cause 'gumming' and other issues. (+) Increase frequency of pad cleaning: Residue control is paramount, even more so in high heat. Brush out/blow out pads often. (+) Increase the number of pads used: Rotate pads often, this helps with residue control and cooling.

I wouldn't recommend it - engagement between the pad and the plate are extremely important and that's been compromised. Not sure if Adams stocks replacements, but the part number is 980.015N and available thru a number of distributors if they do not.

Never heard of him

Glad it was helpful - the downward pressure is probably your biggest issue. The BigFoot system requires almost no pressure at all, you just need to steer the polisher with your lead hand and keep the pad flat to the surface. Gotta let the tool do the work for you The other factors may have contributed, but if you eliminate the pressure the other issues are not large enough on their own to cause catastrophic pad failure. Best of luck going forward and enjoy our 15 Mark II... its my personal GO TO polisher for detailing.

To melt the nylon fibers of the hook you would've had to build some pretty substantial heat and this is only going to come from a few things: Speed too high. You said speed 4 with a short jump to 5 so that eliminates that. Pressure too hard. I notice a lot of people feel the need to apply pressure with BF which is unneccessary. It's a result of the PC style of polishing that's been taught for a decade. Try backing off the pressure. Engagement. You have literally HUNDREDS of hook and HUNDREDS of loop materials. Get a combo that produces a sloppy/loose engagement and this becomes a very bad friction point on a large orbit tool that generates a ton of heat. I have not tested AP pads with the Mark II tools to any serious degree so I can't say if this is an issue or not, but if it was we could assume we'd have seen the issue before, which I haven't. Intermediate foam - the use of softer foams as a backing can lead to a lot of twisting/torquing of the foam. The internal structure of the foam will rub against itself, creating friction, which leads to heat. The more powerful the movement the more rapid the heat build. I have not personally validated the AP pads on the Mark II so I cannot verify this is an issue, but we use a more rigid urethane intermediate and cooling slots in out MF pads for this exact reason. Ambient conditions - were you in full sun or high heat? SWA (supplimental wetting agent) - I noticed you said you used a detail spray to wet the pad. Not sure where this recommendation came from, but wetting MF pads is not advised. You decrease engagement quality of it soaks into the backing, you increase saturated weight which exaggerates a lot of conditions and produces a better migration of heat... And if the DS contains wax it can impact your cutting power. These are about all the possible issues I can fathom based on your post, but really had to know what thing or things ultimately were your main issue. I suspect it's pressure just based on what I see in the market, but I'd need to see your process to know for sure

What speed were you running the tool on?

Michael is correct - this wouldn't net you much. You'd be hard pressed to see a difference in correcting power... where the BigFoot system has a distinct advantage is in operator comfort and finishing ability. OPERATOR COMFORT/HEALTH is an area I'm increasingly aware of and trying to draw attention to for the professional arena. My joints have the smooth movement of a rusty gate hinge (and some of the same sounds) as a result of using tools for over a decade that simply ignored operator health. My contemporaries are falling by the wayside with various health issues from all the years of ignoring their bodies as part of detailing, and what good is a detailer who can't hold a polisher anymore? The need to reduce operator fatigue and the physical effects of abusive polishers is real, but we're only really 10 years in on orbital mainstream so we haven't realized it yet. The BigFoot system has a distinct advantage in the low vibration and operator comfort areas - previously the only tool that could claim lower vibration was the Cyclo, which is now part of the RUPES corporate family FINISH QUALITY is another thing to consider. Does you no good to be able to mow down defects if all you have to do is additional steps to clean up the trash left behind right? The movement type of a dual action RANDOM orbital polisher unequivocally has better finishing potential than gear driven, its demonstrable.So if we can match up on correction power, but finish cleaner is there a debate on which is superior? Its extremely hard to quantify this level b/c on camera the subtleties in finish quality are very hard to show... but in person a milky or hazy finish is easier to see. This doesn't call into question the correcting power of a gear driven tool... it has advantages there, but it also has a fixed number of orbits per revolution by design - this in an of itself creates finishing issues. Theres also the debate of the fact that the class leader in that category spins the wrong way, but thats another item for another time.

This subject comes up a lot lately, and personally after logging many hours with both versions my loyalty is with the short neck. The polisher is easier to control in awkward applications (which are common when using the nano in the areas its best suited for). Both versions are identical in height from pad face to the spindle lock, so no advantage for the long there, but it does have reach - so picture trying to polish into the barrel of a wheel with the wheel still on the car, but thats a rather odd scenario. If its my money I'd buy short and I've probably logged more hours with this thing than anyone in the US aside from my coworkers. Early on I would have leaned towards long as well - but that additional length, while an advantage of reach, does so with some loss of precision (if that makes sense)

The US in an anomaly - in the rest of the world detailers adopted the LHR15 tools, but because we're America and bigger is always better we jumped on the 21 without ever asking why. The tide has turned and thanks to the work of our incredible team here, traveling the country and educating people at BigFoot Seminars detailers are starting to understand the advantages of the 15 for their purposes. The 21 is still an awesome tool and still very effective for detailing, but if you ask anyone on our team what polisher they reach for first to correct a car the 15 the preferred tool.