# Rupes LHR 21E Big Foot VS Flex XC 3401 VRG



## Eurogloss

*Hello everyone :wave:

This is a full review of the Rupes LHR 21E BIG FOOT RANDOM ORBITAL POLISHER

I had the pleasure and opportunity to fully test the Rupes LHR 21E BIG FOOT Random Orbital Polisher against my Flex XC3401 VRG Dual Action Polisher.

The owner of this Panel Shop was kind enough to let me try his brand new Rupes Big Foot for two days !

He gave me a scrap panel ( which was an Audi A4 Bonnet ) you all know how bloody hard this paint can be ( Ceramic) , well I was very excited to get my hands on this big baby and try it out for myself .

This was a good opportunity to test this Polisher before I went out and spent all my hard earned cash on it .

Two different machines Rupes BIG FOOT Random Orbital Polisher with a monster throw of 21mm , Flex XC 3401 VRG Forced Rotation and a throw of just 8mm that's 13 mm less compared to the Rupes.

So I prepared this scrap panel or should I say thrashed the hell of it with this 800grit which Panel Shops use .



















Here's the Big Bad Boy with it's polishing pads!









And he's my Flex XC 3401 VRG which I used in this test comparison 









Why on earth did I do this?:wall:this has made my polishing job even harder now ! 









The reason for this test is that I wanted to compare the Rupes against the Flex to see who would correct at a much faster rate I was a bit scared to be honest of the Rupes because of it's 21mm throw and with this sort of throw it reminded me of a jack hammer, the Flex didn't stand a chance or did it ?

As you can see the paint defects are very deep but I wanted to push both Polishers to there limit .









1200 grit wet sanding was done but forgot to take some photos :wall:
1500 followed to remove as much defects as possible you wouldn't do this to a car .









3M 1500 grit sander paper was used to flatten those nasty scratches and several passes were needed to improve the state of the paint for polishing 









Each side was marked with the Polishers Name to distinguish the polishing performance of each machine.









And a line with masking tape was drawn in the middle to separate the two polishers .

To be fare as a test comparison I used a Farecla Wool Pad and a Lake Country 7.5" Curved Edge Polishing Pad with my Flex DA.

With the Rupes RO I used there recommended products










First up was the Rupes Big Foot 



























The Rupes was having trouble removing these very deep scratches after several passes at full speed with there Heavy Cutting Compound and there very aggressive open pore Blue Cutting Pad.

Here's the other side polished with my Flex XC 3401 VRG DA at full speed !As you can see the paint defects are 95% better !



























Flex left , Rupes right 









Close up 









The throw is just enormous it corrects very quick indeed the only problem I have with this machine is that it lacks power 500watt motor, when correcting the paint I wanted to apply some pressure to remove those paint defects and I managed to bog it down , a real shame really because I really like this machine . Pity Rupes didn't think of making it an 800watt motor it would have been perfect .

Compared to the Flex XC 3401 VRG with 13mm less throw but with a 900 watt motor and forced rotation , the Flex will not stop no matter how much pressure you apply to it , speed of correction is almost as quick as a rotary this is were the Flex wins , granted I did do as many passes on that side of the panel with the Flex like the Rupes , with the added 900watt motor and forced rotation removing those deep scratches was much easier with the Flex.

In conclusion both are very good machines it all depends which one you prefer Rupes or Flex . The Rupes did take a bit of getting used to with that humongous throw but very well balanced ideed.

Like with all polishers it's a matter of taste if you like the throw of the Rupes buy the Rupes , if you like forced rotation buy the Flex .

Thank you for reading my full review on the Rupes Big Foot

Best Regards

Mario*


----------



## -Raven-

Great review Mario! 

The Rupes seems like a bit of a lost product to me. I'd love to give one a go though!


----------



## Eurogloss

type[r]+ said:


> Great review Mario!
> 
> The Rupes seems like a bit of a lost product to me. I'd love to give one a go though!


*Thanks Matt,

It's not a lost product Matt it's a completely different polisher to the Flex they are both very good machines .

Like I said and the end of the Reveiw if you like the throw of the Rupes buy the Rupes if you like the Forced Rotation of the Flex buy the Flex.

Mario*


----------



## -marius-

So wool is ok on the flex?


----------



## Eurogloss

-marius- said:


> So wool is ok on the flex?


*Yes it is Marius, I have been using wool since 2008 when I first introduced the Flex XC3401 VRG as a review to DW .

The Rupes Blue open pore foam pad is quite aggressive even more so than wool IMHO .

Mario *)


----------



## Bond

Mario do you find any specific wool pad works better with the Flex? I have a LC Purple foamed one I'll be trying out today and comparing to the Chemical Guys Optical MF system - just wondering if you find that only spefici versions work or that actually any wool pad will

Thanks


----------



## Griffiths Detailing

I bought a Rupes a month ago, It lasted 2 cars then was broke. I thought it felt very poor quality


----------



## stangalang

This is great mario thank you. And interesting about the wool pads. I have been sent the new car pro wool ring, it will fit the flex, might give this a try as the wool fibres arevdesigned to stand on end, much like surbuf etc pads. This could work very well with the forced rotation of the 3401!


----------



## whitesnake

Great!!


----------



## Eurogloss

Bond said:


> Mario do you find any specific wool pad works better with the Flex? I have a LC Purple foamed one I'll be trying out today and comparing to the Chemical Guys Optical MF system - just wondering if you find that only spefici versions work or that actually any wool pad will
> 
> Thanks


*To answer your question yes, specific wool pads will work quicker and better at removing paint defects .

The Lake Country Purple Wool will work better on specific paint types it won't as quick on Cermics as other wool pads do.
For instance I have been testing this Black Wool pad from http://www.3dproducts.com/Black-Lambswool-pad.html

Which cuts quicker than LC Purple Foamed Wool Pad and is excellent in removing deep scratches from scratch resistant nano ceramic nano paints .
It works really well with the Flex XC 3401 VRG as well as the Flex PE 14-2-15- Rotary however, for some reason it works quicker with the Flex XC 3401 VRG Forced Rotation Dual Action Polisher.

I think the forced rotation adds quicker correction go figure 

I can't comment on the Chemical Guys Optical MF Pads because I haven't tried them I am sure they will as with all MF Buffing Pads .

Hope this helps *



Griffiths Detailing said:


> I bought a Rupes a month ago, It lasted 2 cars then was broke. I thought it felt very poor quality


*
Chris is that Rupes LHR 21E Big Foot that I am reviewing ?*



stangalang said:


> This is great mario thank you. And interesting about the wool pads. I have been sent the new car pro wool ring, it will fit the flex, might give this a try as the wool fibres arevdesigned to stand on end, much like surbuf etc pads. This could work very well with the forced rotation of the 3401!


*You are very welcome Matt, I have been using wool pads with my Flex XC 3401 VRG DA for years and It has got me out of trouble with heavy paint defects always when my rotary failed 

Now I have been testing these one's and I am more than happy better than LC purple wool IMHO they correct quicker especially rock hard VAG paints which suck!

http://www.3dproducts.com/Black-Lambswool-pad.html

Good luck with the New Car Pro Wool Ring Pads .

PS : let me know how you go with them *



whitesnake said:


> Great!!


*Thanks :thumb:*

*Thank you guys for all your kind comments !*


----------



## PJS

Nice review, but ultimately flawed and stacked in Flex's favour!
Your claim about Rupes blue foam pad being more aggressive than lambswool is validated how?
Surely as a proper comparison review, you'd have used the same pads and polish with each machine, since it's the orbital throw that is Rupes' key selling point.
By using different polishes with different pads on the two machines, you've only really demonstrated one pad/polish combo was different from the other.


----------



## -Raven-

PJS said:


> Nice review, but ultimately flawed and stacked in Flex's favour!
> Your claim about Rupes blue foam pad being more aggressive than lambswool is validated how?
> Surely as a proper comparison review, you'd have used the same pads and polish with each machine, since it's the orbital throw that is Rupes' key selling point.
> By using different polishes with different pads on the two machines, you've only really demonstrated one pad/polish combo was different from the other.


Not really, he tested the best of both machines against each other. He's not testing pads and polish, but the machine itself.

How is it stacked in flex's favor? Are you saying Rupes own pads and polish can't cut for crap?


----------



## PJS

-Raven- said:


> Not really, he tested the best of both machines against each other. He's not testing pads and polish, but the machine itself.
> 
> How is it stacked in flex's favor? Are you saying Rupes own pads and polish can't cut for crap?


Of course Mario's testing polish and pads, do you think the Flex uses nothing but the air itself for correction?

Read the following selection of comments made in the opening post...



Eurogloss said:


> This is a full review of the Rupes LHR 21E BIG FOOT RANDOM ORBITAL *POLISHER*
> 
> This was a good opportunity to test this *Polisher* before I went out and spent all my hard earned cash on it .
> 
> Two different machines Rupes BIG FOOT Random Orbital *Polisher with a monster throw of 21mm*, Flex XC 3401 VRG Forced Rotation and a *throw of just 8mm* that's 13 mm less compared to the Rupes.
> 
> The reason for this test is that I wanted to *compare the Rupes against the Flex* to see who would *correct at a much faster rate* I was a bit scared to be honest of the *Rupes because of it's 21mm throw* and with this sort of throw it *reminded me of a jack hammer*, the *Flex didn't stand a chance* or did it?
> 
> To be fair as a test comparison I used a Farecla Wool Pad and a Lake Country 7.5" Curved Edge Polishing Pad with my Flex DA.
> 
> With the Rupes RO I used their recommended products
> 
> The throw is just enormous it corrects very quick indeed the only problem I have with this machine is that it lacks power 500watt motor, when correcting the paint I wanted to apply some pressure to remove those paint defects and I managed to bog it down , a real shame really because I really like this machine. Pity Rupes didn't think of making it an 800watt motor it would have been perfect.


The "test" is stacked because you should know wool cuts more than foam does, even before allowing for differences in the compounds.
So that makes a mockery of the term "fair" - if it were a truly fair comparison, both of the machines would be using the same products.
Ergo, the only variable in the whole equation would be the polishers themselves.

Given the "test" is about the polisher, not the system (of which Flex incidentally don't have one), as Mario sets out to inform us in his opening few comments, I am more than justified in calling it flawed and stacked.
Had he switched pads and polishes across machines, then you'd have seen a fairer review of each polisher's capability!

I also take issue with the last comment quoted - that somehow plucking a figure out of the air would've made the polisher "perfect".
From that alone, I know Mario really doesn't have the foggiest notion of what it is that keeps a machine from bogging down under load.
In that case, it's best advised not to pontificate on something that you've no understanding of.

All Mario has demonstrated above, is a lack of review focus, and that two different "systems" produce differing results.
That members and lurkers will use this as a reference or case in point to justify buying a Flex over the Rupes is doing the community and Rupes quite a disservice.


----------



## craigblues

PJS said:


> The "test" is stacked because you should know wool cuts more than foam does, even before allowing for differences in the compounds.
> So that makes a mockery of the term "fair" - if it were a truly fair comparison, both of the machines would be using the same products.
> Ergo, the only variable in the whole equation would be the polishers themselves.
> 
> Given the "test" is about the polisher, not the system (of which Flex incidentally don't have one), as Mario sets out to inform us in his opening few comments, I am more than justified in calling it flawed and stacked.
> Had he switched pads and polishes across machines, then you'd have seen a fairer review of each polisher's capability!
> 
> I also take issue with the last comment quoted - that somehow plucking a figure out of the air would've made the polisher "perfect".
> From that alone, I know Mario really doesn't have the foggiest notion of what it is that keeps a machine from bogging down under load.
> In that case, it's best advised not to pontificate on something that you've no understanding of.
> 
> All Mario has demonstrated above, is a lack of review focus, and that two different "systems" produce differing results.
> That members and lurkers will use this as a reference or case in point to justify buying a Flex over the Rupes is doing the community and Rupes quite a disservice.


I have to agree with this. Its not a fair comparison. As your testing the polishers (machines) so the only variable should be that. Therefore polish, pad and process should be exactly the same.

I'm hoping to do the same test myself, not as a review but I hope to post my results up soon. I just need to get hold of both machines. :buffer:

But you can't knock Mario for his efforts, he tried to give something back to people on the forum of what he found.


----------



## 3R PROJECT

That is exactly why rupes should not promote the system instead of the tools . I have said that before in DW and to rupes greece .Promote what you do best , they are the no.1 manufacturer of tools in the auto refinishing bussiness .That is what should be advertised not the polishes .Festool has a system too but it never tells customers that the system is the only way to achieve great results . What would have happened to the shinex if that was their approach . Though the system works amazingly and you do get great results with little effort do not promote it that it is the end to all .


----------



## -Raven-

PJS said:


> *From that alone, I know Mario really doesn't have the foggiest notion of what it is that keeps a machine from bogging down under load.*
> In that case, it's best advised not to pontificate on something that you've no understanding of.
> 
> All Mario has demonstrated above, is a lack of review focus, and that two different "systems" produce differing results.
> That members and lurkers will use this as a reference or case in point to justify buying a Flex over the Rupes is doing the community and Rupes quite a disservice.


So you are attacking Mario's decades of experience, knowledge and ability now?!?! :wall:

What did you honestly expect out of this? A long throw DA with no power vs a forced rotation DA with power? :tumbleweed:

waiting for your comparison..... :lol:


----------



## Eurogloss

PJS said:


> Of course Mario's testing polish and pads, do you think the Flex uses nothing but the air itself for correction?
> 
> Read the following selection of comments made in the opening post...
> 
> The "test" is stacked because you should know wool cuts more than foam does, even before allowing for differences in the compounds.
> So that makes a mockery of the term "fair" - if it were a truly fair comparison, both of the machines would be using the same products.
> Ergo, the only variable in the whole equation would be the polishers themselves.
> 
> Given the "test" is about the polisher, not the system (of which Flex incidentally don't have one), as Mario sets out to inform us in his opening few comments, I am more than justified in calling it flawed and stacked.
> Had he switched pads and polishes across machines, then you'd have seen a fairer review of each polisher's capability!
> 
> I also take issue with the last comment quoted - that somehow plucking a figure out of the air would've made the polisher "perfect".
> From that alone, I know Mario really doesn't have the foggiest notion of what it is that keeps a machine from bogging down under load.
> In that case, it's best advised not to pontificate on something that you've no understanding of.
> 
> All Mario has demonstrated above, is a lack of review focus, and that two different "systems" produce differing results.
> That members and lurkers will use this as a reference or case in point to justify buying a Flex over the Rupes is doing the community and Rupes quite a disservice.


*Phil the only time you post is when you have to criticize my threads one thing I forgot to mention in the review is that I did use the Rupes System with the Flex XC 3401 VRG so the results are not flawed .

The Flex still came out in front because of the forced rotation !

As you said this about the testing of two power tools and not polishers and pads !

Also , the Rupes Blue Pad is far more aggressive than the wool pad that I used with the Flex XC 3401 VRG so were are the results flawed ?

Given that the Rupes has more throw shouldn't the Rupes win ?

Next , I do have a notion on when you put pressure on a power tool that if it's not powerful enough ( like the Flex Xc 3401 VRG) it will bog down.

Another thing if you read the end of the review I have not criticized the Rupes I have given members a choice , so as far as I'm concerned I have tested both machines to there limit which in a real life situation would not happen .

The whole testing was done with the simply reason I wanted to know how good the Rupes was ( Before I went out and spent my hard earned $$$$) that's all so as far as I'm concerned I have done this testing to allow people and members of this forum to make an informed decision and not to brainwash them like you insinuate !

I have given the advice that's all

Now it's up to the individual to buy whatever they want .

Phil, if you don't have anything nice to say don't even bother because I find your attitude plain rude !

Mario
*


----------



## PJS

Mario, let's get one thing straight, I've only ever replied to one other of your threads - some many, many moons ago, in relation to the LED floodlight you'd just bought.
I can't even remember what it was, but you grabbed the wrong end of the stick, iirc.
That aside, you don't get singled out for special treatment - I just happened to stumble across this thread during a bit of Rupes rotary Googling.

Without sounding b*tchy, you can hardly call this a review if you omit vital and corroborating evidence to substantiate your conclusion.
Moreover, you have showed nothing and said nothing about putting the wool pad and Magician polish under the Rupes' backing plate.
So again, you've failed to persuade me you have any idea of how to conduct a methodical review, which was supposed to be about the Rupes polisher, not what its manufacturer prescribed "system" was like.
If it were about "systems", then the Flex couldn't be compared as it doesn't have one.

As for not criticising the Rupes - you've a very selective memory - what else would you call your statement that it "needs an 800 watt motor"?
And on that point, could you clarify your engineering credentials that allows you to propose that that wattage of motor is required, and not a 700 watt or 1 kilowatt one instead?
Like I said, and you should know I don't mince my words when calling a spade, a spade, that if you understood torque as related to gearing reductions, then you might have more credibility for the nominated motor wattage.
But then that presumes Rupes haven't already explored various motor sizes and gearbox designs, but just somehow decided the overstock of 500 watt motors they had, needed to be incorporated into something to get them used up!

Whilst you feel you've left the door open for members/readers to make up their own minds, I see it from a different perspective, but not as you put it "brainwash"ed.
That's your wording, not mine, and if you're extracting that from my previous comments, then you've read far too much into them.
Everything I write is as it reads - I never have (and never will) use subtext to infer anything. I call things as I see them, nothing more.

I also have to contest the notion that the Rupes foam pad is more aggressive than either the white wool or black one used - which incidentally I've used for nigh on 2 years now, with the Fein rotary I reviewed 3 years ago next month.
So I know it very well, and what it's capable of, as well as Scholl's own Premium lambswool.

As much as I don't believe it needs said, but I will nonetheless, none of the comments I've made have been personal Mario, I've merely critiqued your review and how the conclusions were arrived at.
That's as much as I'm going to comment on your last sentence above.


----------



## 3R PROJECT

PJS said:


> Mario, let's get one thing straight, I've only ever replied to one other of your threads - some many, many moons ago, in relation to the LED floodlight you'd just bought.
> I can't even remember what it was, but you grabbed the wrong end of the stick, iirc.
> That aside, you don't get singled out for special treatment - I just happened to stumble across this thread during a bit of Rupes rotary Googling.
> 
> Without sounding b*tchy, you can hardly call this a review if you omit vital and corroborating evidence to substantiate your conclusion.
> Moreover, you have showed nothing and said nothing about putting the wool pad and Magician polish under the Rupes' backing plate.
> So again, you've failed to persuade me you have any idea of how to conduct a methodical review, which was supposed to be about the Rupes polisher, not what its manufacturer prescribed "system" was like.
> If it were about "systems", then the Flex couldn't be compared as it doesn't have one.
> 
> As for not criticising the Rupes - you've a very selective memory - what else would you call your statement that it "needs an 800 watt motor"?
> And on that point, could you clarify your engineering credentials that allows you to propose that that wattage of motor is required, and not a 700 watt or 1 kilowatt one instead?
> Like I said, and you should know I don't mince my words when calling a spade, a spade, that if you understood torque as related to gearing reductions, then you might have more credibility for the nominated motor wattage.
> But then that presumes Rupes haven't already explored various motor sizes and gearbox designs, but just somehow decided the overstock of 500 watt motors they had, needed to be incorporated into something to get them used up!
> 
> Whilst you feel you've left the door open for members/readers to make up their own minds, I see it from a different perspective, but not as you put it "brainwash"ed.
> That's your wording, not mine, and if you're extracting that from my previous comments, then you've read far too much into them.
> Everything I write is as it reads - I never have (and never will) use subtext to infer anything. I call things as I see them, nothing more.
> 
> I also have to contest the notion that the Rupes foam pad is more aggressive than either the white wool or black one used - which incidentally I've used for nigh on 2 years now, with the Fein rotary I reviewed 3 years ago next month.
> So I know it very well, and what it's capable of, as well as Scholl's own Premium lambswool.
> 
> As much as I don't believe it needs said, but I will nonetheless, none of the comments I've made have been personal Mario, I've merely critiqued your review and how the conclusions were arrived at.
> That's as much as I'm going to comment on your last sentence above.


Although you are right on the money abou the motor , i have mentioned somewhere that the best sheet sander on earth is made by rupes the sspf and it lacks in watts in comparison with it's competition with only 350w . The rupes will stop rotating simply because it is a random orbital polisher . That is not nessecarily bad since anyone that knows sanding knows that it is then that you get maximum cut . Rupes is suggesting not to apply excess pressure cause if you stop the rotation you will haze up like crazy .That is also the reason behind the design of the pads , maximum cut with little pressure . Bigfoot does not mind if you lay a ton on it . Though it does not work well with farecla wool and it makes a big mess plus forget the smoothness when you use mf , surbuf or wool . The rupes pads play a huge role to how easy the machine handles.


----------



## Kevin Brown

I recall reading this some time ago.

I am the first Rupes dealer in the USA, and have spent a bit of time using and discussing the machine. 
I hope you don't mind a link to a thread that discussed the notion that the motor may be too small:

Optimizing Performance of the Rupes BIGFOOT LHR15ES and LHR21ES...

I disagree that the motor is too small.


----------



## CTR De

Don't wish to get involved in any heated discussions but after extensively reading all about these two machines and getting opinions from users I chose the flex , there seem to be very mixed reviews on both Bigfoot and the 3401 which always seems to come down to how you use it and your ability to change to suit the machines needs , basically each machine does its best work when used a certain way so if your not willing to work it that way you will always have poor results 

They both seem Good machines and it's all about personal choice but I do like the overall look and design of the flex over the rupes machines from a cosmetic point of view 

I do wonder why similar machines need to differ so much in price due to brand name but we all get suckered in at some point to that way of thinking 

I thank mario for taking the time to write a review and even if not a perfect 100% accurate test still gave a great insight into how these machines perform and I for one am pleased I didn't pay the extra for a rupes over the 3401 and it was this review that helped make up my mind to buy the flex as the rupes did nothing special to warrant the extra money especially not the bland design (which I know i know makes no difference to the quality but it's nice to use a machine that does the job and is also pleasing to the eye )

Just my thoughts :thumb:


----------



## JuneBug

Here's another opinion, I had the Flex and although I tried to like it, it just didn't work for me. Why? Well, noise - good God that thing was loud at the top end of the speed dial, rotation was bass-ackwards for me, might be perfect for left handed folks and I failed to see how it was THAT much faster than the old PCXP I was using. I traded it to Todd Helme for his Cyclo. That is an interesting machine and one I love to use for big vehicles that are getting a one step with an AIO. 
Rupes? I don't own one, maybe in the future, but with 2 PC's, Cyclo and a DeWalt rotary, I don't "need" another buffer.


----------



## CraigQQ

Having tried the rupes bigfoot compared to other forced rotation DA's(not flex mind, but rupes own and festool rotex) the forced rotation definitely wins it for me.

as for wool vs foam debate from the first time this was posted last year.. I'd have no doubt that the rupes pad is just as harsh or more so than wool.. I have a pad that has a same feel and core structure to the rupes heavy cut foam pad.. and it was sent to me for polishing up previously unpolished and heavily oxidised metals.. 
This was a long time before big foot came out.. and I thought to myself "this would be horrible to use on paint" then it comes out with the bigfoot lol


----------



## Flakey

Very useful thread Mario. Thank you for taking the time to do this.


----------



## Rascal_69

Was only about a year and a half ago.


----------



## Flakey

Rascal_69 said:


> Was only about a year and a half ago.


In my defense, the thread came up as I was researching both the machines and I thought it's never too late to thank somebody for their good work. :thumb:


----------



## realist

Rascal_69 said:


> Was only about a year and a half ago.


Special Easter reserection thread:lol:


----------

