Make sense to have both a Cyclo and a PC?

Bill D

Bill D

Hooked For Life
A recent thread prompted my interest in the Cyclo again. Not wanting the risks involved in learning to use a rotary, would it be worthwhile to own both a PC and a Cyclo? I've read up on the pros and cons of both, would just like additional opinions. Could one or the other make a more signifcant impact ( enough to justify the expense of one) on certain types of paint?
 
As Tony as said, it's nice to have the Porter Cable and the 4 inch backing plate to get into the tighter spots of a car.



I ended up selling my Porter Cable setup thinking I would rather detail those small areas by hand and use the money for the Cyclo purchase.
 
Damn it man, why did you have to post this? It made me go and read around for the post you were talking about. It sure is tempting...



I wonder how long it would take to make up the price difference between a PC with pad purchases? The Cyclo pads seem to be in the $2-3 ($4-6 for two?) range instead of the $10 range.
 
Here I am.



*I* sure like having both the PC and the Cyclo. But then, I like having a rotary too. The guys asking about this have already heard *my* $0.02 and then some, but yeah, it's *sorta* a midway step between the PC and a rotary, even though it's "just" another type of random orbital polisher.
 
Forgot to ask this too: Is a Cyclo just as safe as a PC? I would need to consider this before wondering about possibly getting one sometime. Thanks again.
 
Bill D- Safe as a PC? No, *BUT*...it's all relative. The Cyclo isn't so much more aggressive that you're more likely to do damage, realistically/practially speaking. But any time you up the aggressiveness, you *do* up the risk. But read the preceding as sorta a "don't blame me"-type disclaimer ;)



So... short (real-world) answer: yeah, it's as safe. No way you're gonna have a problem. Really. If anything, you'll get a Cyclo to go with your PC, then a rotary to go with them.



People sometimes think of the Cyclo as a "sorta-rotary", but it's really just a [*EDIT*] not-so-random orbital polisher. I've *never* had a problem with the Cyclo that I felt I wouldn't have had with the PC. You just gotta have a little more respect for it; it's not *quite* as idiot-proof as the PC. Heh heh, but then *nothing* is truly idiot-proof, huh?
 
Accumulator said:
People sometimes think of the Cyclo as a "sorta-rotary", but it's really just another random orbital polisher.
Click to expand...



Can you spin the pads freely when the Cyclo is off? I was under the impression (also from the fact a wrench isn't included) that this was not the case. If they move from the motor, then it isn't really random-orbit, it's a direct drive maching that just isn't a rotary but rather direct-drive in an orbital motion.



I also thought it odd that the specs mention a 2 amp motor, but everyone claims it feels more powerful/less bog-prone than a PC. I wonder if that's due to the lower speed and smaller pads rather than actually having more power?
 
Aurora40 said:
Can you spin the pads freely when the Cyclo is off? I was under the impression (also from the fact a wrench isn't included) that this was not the case. If they move from the motor, then it isn't really random-orbit, it's a direct drive maching that just isn't a rotary but rather direct-drive in an orbital motion.
Click to expand...



Hey, good observation :xyxthumbs Heh heh, I've used this thing for over 20 years and yet that never occurred to me when posting about it :o



[Accumulator pauses to :rolleyes: about his carelessness and shallow thinking and to commend Aurora40 for his big, and well-engaged, brain :D]



Yes, the heads are directly driven. If you move one, the other moves too and they move in fixed, elliptical orbits. This is backed up by a line in the manual that says "the two heads are timed exactly 1/2 turn apart". No way for something that's "random" to also be "timed ... apart". And the diagram of the machine's internals confirms this. There is an "idler gear" that engages the two "drive gears" which attach to the (solid) counterweights via bearings. The counterweights/heads can spin freely (rotationally) on the bearing, but the orbits are fixed.



This would explain, in part, why the Cyclo is "more powerful" than the PC. So maybe it *should* be considered a "sorta rotary" after all. But I've *NEVER* had any "rotary-type" problems with it, certainly no holograms (in fact, I've used the Cyclo to *remove* them). If anything, I sometimes find the Cyclo easier to use because it seems to more consistenly do what I expect than the PC does.



As far as the wrench, both of *mine* came with one. It *is* necessary to remove the heads (because of the free-spinning bearings between the heads/counterweights and the drive gears).



I also thought it odd that the specs mention a 2 amp motor, but everyone claims it feels more powerful/less bog-prone than a PC. I wonder if that's due to the lower speed and smaller pads rather than actually having more power?
Click to expand...



Got me there :nixweiss I don't think it's just the smaller heads, though. I know what you mean (more concentrated application of effort), and I've used the smaller plate/pads on the PC. No comparison, the Cyclo is more powerful. Probably because of the features discussed above. This also holds true when comparing the PC at a similar speed setting.



Gee, I sure hope this doesn't discourage anyone from getting one, or, conversely, give anyone unrealistic expectations.



Again, a *big* :xyxthumbs to Aurora40 for leading to (hopefully) further clarification of how the Cyclo works.
 
Accumulator said:
As far as the wrench, both of *mine* came with one. It *is* necessary to remove the heads (because of the free-spinning bearings between the heads/counterweights and the drive gears).
Click to expand...



Well, then I think this would be considered a random-orbit polisher. On the PC, the orbit is direct-drive too. The shaft will rotate in that 1/4" circle (or whatever) at a fixed rate (depending on the speed dial). It is the fact that the pad itself can rotate freely on the shaft that makes it random.



I believe that Makita RO buffer that is switchable actually locks the pad shaft such that the pad itself cannot rotate freely.



If the pads rotate freely, then the motion of the pad is random (for the most part). The center of the pad will sweep out a fixed orbit, but as you move away from the center, the pad can actually stay in one place at most particular points (though not along the whole pad). If you put your finger about halfway in from the edge while it is running, the foam should stay there on your finger and not be swept along it (which would start to hurt a lot). According to my quick thoughts, this won't work within one orbit radius from the center of the pad or one orbit radius in from the edge of the pad. But anywhere else it should. But if it stops in one spot on the pad, then it is definitely moving (or tearing apart) everywhere else. I think this is what makes them fairly safe is that they can grab on one point and not hurt it. But if you stuck the whole pad on an emblem or something, damage to the pad or emblem would probably result as the pad can't stop everywhere.



I might be over-thinking it, though. It would be neat if someone made a flash demo or something! :D



So it could be the smaller pad size, coupled with a larger orbit offset (or the same offset, which would be larger proportionally than the pad size) that gives it this extra bite over the PC. I dunno... but I sure want to get one now... :)
 
My biggest hesitation to not use a Cyclo is if it similarly risky as it is with a rotary for someone unfamilar with it to burn the paint. I think the consensus is that it is not but it also isn't quite as "idiot proof"as the PC. The Cyclo does sound like something different to try that is still relatively safe to see what kind of results it can produce
 
Bill D- Yeah, I believe your assessment is correct.



Aurora40- Heh heh, Yeah, and I think you have *me* overthinking this too, and thus missing obvious, salient points such as "what makes for the 'random' action". But I find the discussion interesting nonetheless.



Marketers of RO polishers often compare the randomness of their machines to the motions of the human hand, and that is apparently *NOT* an accurate analogy. Not that it really matters.



Further overthinking ;) ...Yeah, I think you're onto something: the Cyclo's orbits *are* of a different size relative to the size of its pads and the rotational movement afforded by the bearing. Maybe that *does* explain how its action differs from that of the PC :nixweiss And, the area of pad overlap makes for a (limited) area where the surface being worked gets twice the amount of contact for the given OPM speed.



Oh, and IMO, touching the pad of the PC when it's moving is a lot less interesting than touching the pad of the Cyclo when *it's* moving!
 
Accumulator said:
Marketers of RO polishers often compare the randomness of their machines to the motions of the human hand, and that is apparently *NOT* an accurate analogy. Not that it really matters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, random doesn't really mean safe, but I think they tend to imply that. Imagine if the PC had a 6" pad, and a 3" offset to it's orbit instead of 1/4". Sure, the motion is random in that you can't predict which part of the pad will actually sweep across the paint since the pad could turn however it wants on it's shaft, but you could certainly predict that a lot of pad is gonna work its way over the paint. It would be way more aggressive than the existing PC is (and probably waayyy harder to hang onto), while still being random.

Accumulator said:
Further overthinking ;) ...Yeah, I think you're onto something: the Cyclo's orbits *are* of a different size relative to the size of its pads and the rotational movement afforded by the bearing. Maybe that *does* explain how its action differs from that of the PC :nixweiss And, the area of pad overlap makes for a (limited) area where the surface being worked gets twice the amount of contact for the given OPM speed.



Oh, and IMO, touching the pad of the PC when it's moving is a lot less interesting than touching the pad of the Cyclo when *it's* moving!
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's it then, especially given the finger test. How does the offset actually compare to your PC? Just on an eyeballing scale, do they seem the same, or does the Cyclo seem to have more offset?



Oh, also, do you find the Cyclo pads have as long a life as your PC pads do? Or do they tend to wear out quicker?
 
I know you guys like Gary's Work, Turbo, and I know he uses and likes his Cyclo. He also uses other polishers as well, but he has told me before that he really likes it for many reasons. Perhaps he'll see this and comment.

I think one hesitation is that the Cyclo price is about 120 more than the PC. However, I have heard from people that they have owned a Cyclo for many years and never once had a problem. One guy ordered one and said this is his second. His first one is 40 yrs. old and still works great. Thus, over many years the price is not too shabby.

You guys have brought up some great discussions on both polishers. Very professional!



R Regan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top