Quote:
Originally Posted by David Fermani
...Good luck - let us know how you make out.
|
Well, ran out of time for testing the
Menzerna,
Meguiar's M105/M205/M86, and Ultrafina.
Got all the goods from PAC, but just got behind the eight ball on scheduling.
No worries- looking forward to getting behind the machines soon and spending a day or two with the liquids and pads.
On another note, an autopia member/car wax buddy and I did get a chance to confirm that the maximum
RPM movement of the
Flex XC 3401 VRG is accurate (he brought along a trick machine that counted rotations via strobe light).
As for the OPM rating, I guess
Flex is defining their OPM differently as compared to the other manufacturers I know of.
I do not mean that in a smarty-pants way, either. They must be counting ONE oscillation movement from a peak to a low, versus a peak to a low to a peak. Make sense? If we were measuring the random orbital's motion, that would be a peak to a high, since it creates its curved motion outward (versus the
Flex starting outward and moving inward).
If we are using what we consider to be a "normal" way to measure OPM, the Flex specs out at 4,800 OPM, 480 RPM (this is based upon a 10:1 ratio of oscillation versus rotation of the backing plate, confirmed by rotating it by hand and counting the oscillations).
We tried to measure the random orbital, but it was difficult because the strobe had to be matched to the rotation to get an accurate reading (as far as I know), and since the rotation was random, there was inaccurate readings. I am pretty confident that the random orbital can exceed the RPM of the Flex, at least until the pressure/friction dynamic takes its toll.