Power vs. Consumption - Why bigger is not always better.

[Dylan@RUPES]

Bigger is better, except when it isn’t. When it comes to horsepower, bench press numbers, and the size of the fish you just landed a bigger number is better. However, when it comes to cholesterol numbers or the amount of fuel your car burns to get down the road, many of us would agree that less is more.


The detailing world has been fighting the misconception "that bigger is better" for quite some time. Too thick a coat or too many coats of wax makes it hard to wipe off. Its a mistake that many a rookie has made at one point or another. Too much soap and you`ll have a hard time rinsing a vehicle clean. But what about the tools we use? Little thought is given to what is "too much". We regularly vocalize our desire for more power, grunting like Tim Allen describing tools, but is it possible that too much power is a bad thing?


UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE WATTS MEAN

It is important for consumers to be educated on what watts really mean to them. I`m not for a second suggesting we all become experts in electrical engineering, but a general level of understanding helps us all be better `shoppers`. Not everyone is capable of building a car from scratch, but I think we can all agree that having an understanding of what MPG, horsepower, and torque numbers mean in terms of performance make you better equipped to buy the right car.


Power tools take energy from the grid (input) and tun it into torque (output). Yet, in the US tools are rated by the power they have the potential to consume (watts) and not by the work they actually do. Savvy marketers from around the industry have recognized the bigger is better mentality and combined with a lack of consumer education leverage it to present products as better purely based on statistics of power consumption. So it is key to understand that watts is not a measurement of work done by the tool (output). Watts is a measurement of consumption (input), like how a human body consumes calories or a car consumes fuel. Judging a tool`s potential on higher watts alone is no different than deeming a car superior for using more fuel or saying a meal is better because it has more fat.


Simply put - increased watts does not directly translate to increased performance and certainly not in a linear way. While increased output can (and typically does) result from increased input, there are other factors to consider such as the byproducts of the increased consumption and what happens to the excess power that isn`t being delivered to the surface.

EFFICIENCY MATTERS

Staying with our analogy of a car with worse MPG, let`s also consider that your large increase in fuel consumption only netted a small amount of additional horsepower; the idea seems even crazier now right? Stuffing more fuel into the input side for a small net gain on the output side is a demonstration of how inefficient that particular car is.


But what happens to all that additional `input`? Energy will manifest itself in a few ways, it cannot magically disappear or be purely absorbed, so we have to define (for polishing tools) where the excess energy goes:

• Mechanical Movement - this is the desired result of the input conversion. Orbits, rotations, etc... ultimately we want to take as much of the input and create mechanical movement. Any other input that isn`t converted to this output would be considered waste. The challenge is that in an orbital tool you are working with an unbalanced (eccentric) movement that wants to waste some of that energy by design. To create an efficient random orbital polisher that minimizes wasted energy takes some very precise and clever engineering.
• Heat - the most common way for excess input to manifest itself. Heating of the housing, heating of the internals, heating of the plate, potentially heating of the pad and ultimately the working surface. Heat is considered an undesirable byproduct and experienced detailers, especially those that work in less controlled or mobile environments know all too well how unpredictably compounds can perform when undesired heat is introduced.
• Vibration - by virtue of its design an orbital tool is not balanced, even more so when discussing large orbit tools. Fortunately, no one runs a polisher for its intended purpose without a pad, but when a pad doesn`t offset enough of the excess energy or the energy is more than the counterbalance can effectively offset the result is increased/excess vibration. No one likes the feeling of having their joints rattled loose by a tool vibrating in their hands, and this undesired byproduct has implications in the health of the operator as well as (to a degree) the quality of the finished product.
• Noise - an often unconsidered factor in this arena, the audible noise the tool produces as it operates is itself a form of energy consumption. Gears lashing together, motor rotation being generated then translated through the gearbox, the translation of that movement to an eccentric movement, it all creates sound, and the the creation of sound is a form of energy consumption. A quiet tool is often times the sign of an efficient tool. While we should all probably be working with hearing protection when polishing the reduction of noise at its source is ideal.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE LARGE ORBIT MARKET, FROM THE COMPANY THAT CREATED IT

Thus far the materials published about the upcoming Mark II Bigfoot polishers have included a specific reference: "30% more power". How each person chooses to translate that greatly changes what the message is. As we`ve been discussing - if it were 30% more input power what we would really be concerned with would be the net result to output, if any.


Ultimately, what we are concerned with is output to the working surface. We as objective detailers shouldn’t let the red herring of “input” enter into our minds unless we are calculating how much our energy bill is going to increase. If two tools produce similar results, then the tool that is using less energy is more efficient. A properly balanced, highly tuned polisher will deliver better results without all the undesired byproducts of a tool that requires too much energy in an effort to mask an inefficient design.

With nearly two years of careful development to improve an already revolutionary design, RUPES has managed a extraordinary feat. The BigFoot Mark II polisher will deliver at least 30% more power to the surface without increasing consumption. This means better performance at the working surface with the same 500 watt input rating. It also means there is no increase in heat, no increase in vibration, and not even an increase in your energy bill - if that is an area of concern for you.

BUT HOW? WITCHCRAFT? VOODOO? ALIEN TECHNOLGOY?

The Mark II accomplishes this increased output without increased consumption through a redesigned, custom in-house-built motor, improved electronic controls, and careful internal redesigns. It took nearly as long to improve BigFoot as it did to create the original design. The benefit of being an engineering firm and tool manufacturer opens the door to amazing possibilities. Add a little fabled Italian passione and you get Mark II.


Revisiting our car analogy one last time:


"The latest model generates 30% more horsepower than the previous model did, and does so without any increased fuel consumption!"


That sounds like a winning proposition and the car I`d want to buy.

*this article is a collaborative effort of Todd Helme, Jason Rose, and Dylan von Kleist on behalf of RUPES.

[Oldfordisbetter]

Cool article. Thanks for posting!

[RaysWay]

Very cool article and this makes a lot of sense. This reminds me of the Car Audio world where you have cheap amplifiers with ridiculous power ratings plastered on every inch of the retail packaging, at a fraction of the price of quality amplifiers. But with their inefficient design, perform horribly compared to an amplifier with a lower watt rating.

You guys have done a great job of explaining the innovation and technology behind RUPES.

[Ronkh]

Very cool article and this makes a lot of sense. This reminds me of the Car Audio world where you have cheap amplifiers with ridiculous power ratings at a fraction of the price of quality amplifiers. But with their inefficient design, perform horribly.

You guys have done a great job of explaining the innovation and technology behind RUPES.

But with amps, there are different ways of measurement.

[Chas]

Awesome article, cannot wait to get my hands on a Mark II

[rlmccarty2000]

With all that said, Dylan, what can the user expect from the new 21 MarkII? Faster polishing time? Increased cut? I felt the previous version of the Rupes polisher line was powerful enough to do every job very well. Give me a reason to step up to the new version. I didn`t jump on the Boss bandwagon for many reasons, including an increase in power. If the old version was doing the job why buy the new one? I do want to thank the Rupes management for being innovators and not copiers. I will always support innovation n the field of detailing. Go Rupes!

[Dylan@RUPES]

With all that said, Dylan, what can the user expect from the new 21 MarkII? Faster polishing time? Increased cut? I felt the previous version of the Rupes polisher line was powerful enough to do every job very well. Give me a reason to step up to the new version. I didn`t jump on the Boss bandwagon for many reasons, including an increase in power. If the old version was doing the job why buy the new one? I do want to thank the Rupes management for being innovators and not copiers. I will always support innovation n the field of detailing. Go Rupes!

The main thing is ability for the machine to power thru rotation on curves. Obviously that +30% in output will translate to some degree of faster correction as well, but most notably pad rotation is less technique dependent than it was with the original tool. The chassis features some changes which improve feel and the overall user interface with the tool. This is largely an evolutionary update - the Bigfoot as it exists today is still a class leader, but the engineering team listened to what people were saying and addressed those `complaints` (for lack of a better term). The Mark II feels familiar to anyone who has used the original tool, but at the same time it feels different. Hard to explain - those that will be at SEMA I encourage you to come by and put your hands on the Mark II... we`ll have the legacy tools there as well. Its a great chance for a side by side comparison to experience the difference for yourself.

[Mike lambert]

When is expected availability?

[XxBoostinxX]

Excellent article Dylan. Thank you for taking the time to explain everything.

When is expected availability?

+1!

[GearHead_1]

I understood what was said here prior to reading this thread. I certainly appreciate the fact that the new product is "putting more power to the pavement". This can`t be anything but an improvement but if you get 30% more out of your machine and still don`t rival the competition`s output where are you? If it were Toyota saying that about the Prius it would be a "oh, well OK then".

I believe that in many consumers minds it will come down to how much "horsepower" the new product puts down when compared to the competitors relative products as opposed to besting ones self and of course the price. Since the efficiency of automobiles has been used as a comparison here, the goal seems to be getting more each model year and holding the previous model years price. The power can of course be measured and compared not only within a brands line but from brand to brand.

I have no doubt that Rupes motors/machines are likely to be technically superior but how do they compare to other so claimed powerful machines? In my reading it seems apparent to me that users, particularly those who don`t do this daily, are willing to put up with some vibration when when talking power and more importantly cost. I don`t know what watching a machine free wheel smoothly in the air translates to in the end users mind and what they actually feel during use. As has been said customers like numbers. Let`s be honest, all manufacturers have touted their machines motors wattage as a measure of its power as long as it`s in their best interest. I`d be interested in some heads up "horsepower" tests. Calling Todd, you can do this.

[RaysWay]

But with amps, there are different ways of measurement.

That`s true, but my point was to make a comparison with cheap car audio manufacturers who slap 4000 watt max stickers on a $50 amp because they can technically show a spike on an amplifier bench test that`s running at a ridiculous voltage. Use that cheap "4000 watt" amp to run a set of speakers and watch it flounder. Then compare it to a 500 watt quality amp and you`ll notice a big difference. It was just an analogy.

The main thing is ability for the machine to power thru rotation on curves. Obviously that +30% in output will translate to some degree of faster correction as well, but most notably pad rotation is less technique dependent than it was with the original tool. The chassis features some changes which improve feel and the overall user interface with the tool. This is largely an evolutionary update - the Bigfoot as it exists today is still a class leader, but the engineering team listened to what people were saying and addressed those `complaints` (for lack of a better term). The Mark II feels familiar to anyone who has used the original tool, but at the same time it feels different. Hard to explain - those that will be at SEMA I encourage you to come by and put your hands on the Mark II... we`ll have the legacy tools there as well. Its a great chance for a side by side comparison to experience the difference for yourself.

That`s very cool that you guys are having the legacy tools available for comparison. You must be confident to show off the improvements

I understood what was said here prior to reading this thread. I certainly appreciate the fact that the new product is "putting more power to the pavement". This can`t be anything but an improvement but if you get 30% more out of your machine and still don`t rival the competition`s output where are you? If it were Toyota saying that about the Prius it would be a "oh, well OK then".

I disagree. You don`t have to have class leading performance numbers in every single category to be a winner. If Toyota came out and said their Prius has been improved by 30%, some people would say "oh, well OK then" but I bet there would be thousands of very happy consumers who would say something more along the lines of "wow! cowabunga!". Generalizing the thought process of consumers into a single category is a slippery slope. The Prius doesn`t go 0-60 as fast as a Camaro, but Toyota still does pretty well with them. If any company makes any product or service 30% better, they`re moving in the right direction.

I believe that in many consumers minds it will come down to how much "horsepower" the new product puts down when compared to the competitors relative products as opposed to besting ones self and of course the price. Since the efficiency of automobiles has been used as a comparison here, the goal seems to be getting more each model year and holding the previous model years price. The power can of course be measured and compared not only within a brands line but from brand to brand.

Yes some people will buy a tool based on how much "horsepower" a new tool puts down. Some people buy computers based on how many gigs of ram it has. Some people buy cameras based on how many megapixels it has. And some people don`t.

I have no doubt that Rupes motors/machines are likely to be technically superior but how do they compare to other so claimed powerful machines? In my reading it seems apparent to me that users, particularly those who don`t do this daily, are willing to put up with some vibration when when talking power and more importantly cost. I don`t know what watching a machine free wheel smoothly in the air translates to in the end users mind and what they actually feel during use. As has been said customers like numbers. Let`s be honest, all manufacturers have touted their machines motors wattage as a measure of its power as long as it`s in their best interest. I`d be interested in some heads up "horsepower" tests. Calling Todd, you can do this.

I don`t think it`s as simple as "the brand with the most power per dollar" wins, if it was then every single Ferrari owner would have a Hellcat in their driveway.

I think we have to remember that competition is good, and we all have our own unique preferences.

A Camaro makes more horsepower than a Prius, is a fact.
A Camaro is better than a Prius is an opinion.

I don`t need to compare dyno charts to determine if a tool is good or not. A lot of detailers I know and I have been able to get amazing results with the Mark I version of the Rupes polishers. Heck, it`s the tool I used to correct my own car! So any level of improvement can only be a good thing.

[RMD]

I appreciate what`s being said here, but the car analogies don`t really fit, especially to gear head`s point. A Camaro and a Prius are not comparable. They are purchased for different purposes and marketed to totally different end users. Rupes and Boss do exactly the same thing and are purchased by the same category of user and compete for the same dollar.

The comparison is more Camaro vs Mustang. If one had merely an evolutionary horsepower or torque increase in a given year while the other had much higher numbers, the numbers will definitely pull buyers in that class to choose one or the other. I would wager there`s a few hellcat owners out there who have not been dodge owners ever until that car came out.

If if torque is the magic measure here, given we are talking about turning force of a pad on paint, how do those numbers compare between the two models? Efficiency is no doubt positive, but if a slightly less efficient larger motor produces more torque than a more efficient smaller motor, then the big motor wins... if, the goal is torque. If the goal is efficiency, the small one wins.

If placing emphasis on watts is a red herring, how do I use The efficiency factors internal to the tool to determine which tool will give me a better user experience?

[RaysWay]

I appreciate what`s being said here, but the car analogies don`t really fit, especially to gear head`s point. A Camaro and a Prius are not comparable. They are purchased for different purposes and marketed to totally different end users. Rupes and Boss do exactly the same thing and are purchased by the same category of user and compete for the same dollar.

The comparison is more Camaro vs Mustang. If one had merely an evolutionary horsepower or torque increase in a given year while the other had much higher numbers, the numbers will definitely pull buyers in that class to choose one or the other. I would wager there`s a few hellcat owners out there who have not been dodge owners ever until that car came out.

If if torque is the magic measure here, given we are talking about turning force of a pad on paint, how do those numbers compare between the two models? Efficiency is no doubt positive, but if a slightly less efficient larger motor produces more torque than a more efficient smaller motor, then the big motor wins... if, the goal is torque. If the goal is efficiency, the small one wins.

If placing emphasis on watts is a red herring, how do I use The efficiency factors internal to the tool to determine which tool will give me a better user experience?

That`s true, but you can replace the word "Prius" with "Mustang" in all of my statements and my point would still be the same; the car with the highest numbers doesn`t just flat out win. Otherwise the other car wouldn`t sell. Everyone has their own preferences (see Porter Cable v Griots). But I do agree that cars are a bad example to use, since the purchase of a car has a lot more variables. How about drills v.s. drills? I`ll tell you that if I was going to buy a new drill today, there`s a 99% chance it would be a Makita. Did I compare torque dyno charts? Nope. As a consumer I didn`t decide to give my money to Makita based on a torque comparison chart.

[GearHead_1]

Ray, I believe you to be right with respect to a Ferrari guy is always going to be a Ferrari guy (replace with Rupes) and a Prius guy will be a Prius (replace with another brand) guy. My point is simply for those that don`t know and that aren`t interested necessarily in being the Ferrari guy (they might be), they`re going to shop by numbers. Watts, torque, HP, price, whatever they can get a hold of to form their opinon when considering two similar (I say that only in a product line`s positioning) models. Bigger, better, faster, more is just something people do. This seems to be particularly true when it comes to car folk.

[Dylan@RUPES]

I appreciate what`s being said here, but the car analogies don`t really fit, especially to gear head`s point. A Camaro and a Prius are not comparable. They are purchased for different purposes and marketed to totally different end users.

You`re making a leap to a conclusion that if you design for efficiency thats all you design for. I`ll throw a few more car analogies in here that translate more directly -

Look at generations of Corvettes, from one to the next. Up until the C7 the previous 2 generations used the LS smallblock architecture in its tried and true form to power the car, when the C6 arrived and replaced the C5 it brought with it more HP and improved fuel economy. The design approach of Mark II is proof of concept that we didn`t need to increase wattage to increase output. We basically went from a C5 Corvette with an LS1 to a C6 Corvette with an LS2. Same displacement, more power, and improved fuel economy. We`re not designing a Prius to compete with a sportscar, we`re building a better sports car.

Another point that I think is being missed is - how much power do you need to get the job done? How much power is actually necessary to accomplish the task and then how much becomes superfluous?

You can approach a quarter mile run with 2 different cars, a 1969 camaro in full street trim with a rumbling big block under the hood that eats averages 8mpg, produces 700hp and runs 10`s. You can run that same time in a modded C7 Corvette with far less horsepower thanks to a lighter chassis, more advanced management of power, and a more economical power plant. Both cars trip the lights at 10seconds, but one does it economically. Doesn`t make the economical one under powered, it means it makes better use of the power it has.