# Rupes LHR21 vs LHR15 which one to buy?



## Richardt

I am a novice polisher and want to know if anyone can help me understand the difference between the LHR21 and LHR15.

I know both have a 500w motor and that LHR21 has a bigger orbit (21mm). But many on this forum seems to choose the LHR15 for detailing. Is the LHR15 superior in detailing? If so why?

On this thread Paul uses LHR15. http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=269153

Hope you guys can clarify the difference between the machines.


----------



## CraigQQ

it's just the throw size, the bigger the throw the worse it is at correction really..

In my opinion, both the LHR21 and the LHR15 are far far inferior to the BR109AE and the EK150AE


----------



## TOGWT

[it's just the throw size, the bigger the throw the worse it is at correction really..]

Could you explain ...


----------



## CraigQQ

it's simply not as fast to correct due to the bigger throw size.. testing side by side with the same pad & same polish with the rupes forced rotation and you get about 15-20% better correction with the latter.


----------



## Richardt

CraigQQ said:


> it's simply not as fast to correct due to the bigger throw size.. testing side by side with the same pad & same polish with the rupes forced rotation and you get about 15-20% better correction with the latter.


Craig are you saying that the LHR15 is faster than the LHR21 in correction because it has shorter throws?


----------



## CraigQQ

technically yes.. but still not good enough imo.

the post you quoted is about the rupes BR109AE


----------



## Giobart

Richardt said:


> Craig are you saying that the LHR15 is faster than the LHR21 in correction because it has shorter throws?


In reality is the opposite, LHR21E is faster than the LHR15E in correction! 

The real difference between the LHR21E and LHR15E is the size plate

LHR21E = plate 150 mm for pads 155-180 mm
LHR15E = plate 125 mm for pads 130-150 mm

To recover the reduction of cutting were increased rpms in LHR15E!

Imho LHR15E is the best for the detailing given the size of the pads! :thumb:


----------



## Richardt

Giobart said:


> In reality is the opposite, LHR21E is faster than the LHR15E in correction!
> 
> The real difference between the LHR21E and LHR15E is the size plate
> 
> LHR21E = plate 150 mm for pads 155-180 mm
> LHR15E = plate 125 mm for pads 130-150 mm
> 
> To recover the reduction of cutting were increased rpms in LHR15E!
> 
> Imho LHR15E is the best for the detailing given the size of the pads! :thumb:


So Giobart you are saying that there are no difference in cutting ability (time) between the machines? So the shorter throw with higher rpm compensates for the longer throws on LHR21


----------



## 7MAT

Giobart said:


> In reality is the opposite, LHR21E is faster than the LHR15E in correction!
> 
> The real difference between the LHR21E and LHR15E is the size plate
> 
> LHR21E = plate 150 mm for pads 155-180 mm
> LHR15E = plate 125 mm for pads 130-150 mm
> 
> To recover the reduction of cutting were increased rpms in LHR15E!
> 
> Imho LHR15E is the best for the detailing given the size of the pads! :thumb:


This is correct, both machines feature the same new 500w spec motor with increased torque.

The LHR21ES will correct slightly faster as the pad is moving further / quicker per rotation due to the larger orbit and has been designed with bodyshops in mind.

The LHR15ES is better for control and has made especially for the detailing market.

CraigQQ .... did you use the Bigfoot polishes and pads when you did the comparision?

Matt


----------



## CraigQQ

I did mat, used same ones on the forced rotation rupes aswell, and it performed much better (extreme test tbh, removing 1000 da sanding marks from honda paint) but the forced rotation 9mm orbit left less sanding haze (almost none)
where as the bigfoot's left more of the haze using the same combo, and finished down about the same(ie no holograms ect)

so imo the forced rotation is a far better machine.

that said I'll not be buying either.. I'll be buying a rotex 125(from you when I get round to it!) around the same cost as the bigfoot and about twice as good a machine.


----------



## Spoony

I should note I did also test the 15mm and 21mm against the forces rotation. While I felt the machines were nice they had nothing on forced rotation in terms of correction.

IMHO the 15mm and 21mm are inferior to the rupes forced da machine. I also disliked the rupes blue pad as I did not like the cell structure.

I was in shock with the 1000grit being whizzed over the car to start with lol


----------



## Richardt

Matt do you know if the Lhr15 backing plate fits on the Lhr21?


----------



## Richardt

Richardt said:


> Matt do you know if the Lhr15 backing plate fits on the Lhr21?


Or if anyone else know.


----------



## Giobart

The backing plate of LHR15E fits on the Lhr21, but the machine becomes unbalanced and vibrate, is not recommended!


----------



## tzotzo

CraigQQ said:


> it's just the throw size, the bigger the throw the worse it is at correction really..
> 
> In my opinion, both the LHR21 and the LHR15 are far far inferior to the BR109AE and the EK150AE





TOGWT said:


> [it's just the throw size, the bigger the throw the worse it is at correction really..]
> 
> Could you explain ...


I am not a scientist but I think that the smaller the orbit is the more times, the pad passes from the same spot. Thus quicke correction.

So Rupes LHR 21 and LHR 15 don't have forced rotation?


----------



## CraigQQ

I don't know the exact motor of the LHR but it certainly doesn't perform like a forced rotation machine..

unless its zero pressure and 0 degree angle to the panel then it bogs down easy.
compared to the forced rotation which doesn't at all unless your properly leaning on it!


----------



## craigblues

LHR15 to buy or not to buy?


----------



## 3R PROJECT

CraigQQ said:


> I did mat, used same ones on the forced rotation rupes aswell, and it performed much better (extreme test tbh, removing 1000 da sanding marks from honda paint) but the forced rotation 9mm orbit left less sanding haze (almost none)
> where as the bigfoot's left more of the haze using the same combo, and finis
> hed down about the same(ie no holograms ect)
> 
> so imo the forced rotation is a far better machine.
> 
> that said I'll not be buying either.. I'll be buying a rotex 125(from you when I get round to it!) around the same cost as the bigfoot and about twice as good a machine.


A little info since i own all the afformentioned tools . Rupes lhr15 , lhr21 and BR109 are all random orbital absolutely no forced rotation since there are no planetary gears . The ek150 is a planetary sander great but inferior to rotex 150 but it is less expensive around 150euro on MSRP . BR109 i can not even explain how great it is . It is a gelcoat sander so it is truly incredible make sure you buy the Ek150 polishing plate for it so 6inch pads can fit perfectly . The only thing about it is that it is only 30euro less than the lhr21 but it worths it . All three rotex (150, 125,90) are incredible and the rotex 90 will correct faster and better than a rotary with spot pads . Though all three of them are more expensive than the bigfoot . The rotex 90 the least expensive of the three has a 120euro higher MSRP .I am comparing prices of machines not system . The lhs 21 corrects faster than the lhr15 but the lhr15 will haze up less than the lhr21 so for a one step correction it is actually better .I hope this helps.


----------



## Richardt

3R PROJECT said:


> A little info since i own all the afformentioned tools . Rupes lhr15 , lhr21 and BR109 are all random orbital absolutely no forced rotation since there are no planetary gears . The ek150 is a planetary sander great but inferior to rotex 150 but it is less expensive around 150euro on MSRP . BR109 i can not even explain how great it is . It is a gelcoat sander so it is truly incredible make sure you buy the Ek150 polishing plate for it so 6inch pads can fit perfectly . The only thing about it is that it is only 30euro less than the lhr21 but it worths it . All three rotex (150, 125,90) are incredible and the rotex 90 will correct faster and better than a rotary with spot pads . Though all three of them are more expensive than the bigfoot . The rotex 90 the least expensive of the three has a 120euro higher MSRP .I am comparing prices of machines not system . The lhs 21 corrects faster than the lhr15 but the lhr15 will haze up less than the lhr21 so for a one step correction it is actually better .I hope this helps.


Great info thanks alot. One question though, how can the ro 90 and the ro 125 correct so fast when it only has a throw of (orbit) of 3mm? Just wondering.


----------



## 3R PROJECT

Richardt said:


> Great info thanks alot. One question though, how can the ro 90 and the ro 125 correct so fast when it only has a throw of (orbit) of 3mm? Just wondering.


 . They are planetary sanders . That means that they are geared to never stop even if you sit on them . It is a completely different concept from random orbital where the pad oscillates .The pad rotates like a rotary but in order to provide stability , if you ever sand with a rotary and try to lay it flat without a 5-10% tilt you you will see why , it imitates the orbital through of a random orbit sander though not quite the same since the pad on RO is oscillating all over the place . The one was built for coarse sanding and heavy removal and the other one for intermediate to finishing sanding which is why if you apply excess pressure it will start behaving like a jig and provide an even finer cut . That is what most people call 'bog' which i always induce especially when finishing on primer by simply applying pressure on the base over the plate for even finer results . That is also another reason why the interface pad on 3mm RO while sanding primer is so important cause it adds weight and the pad barely moves . So imagine now how things heat up on planetary sanders when the throw gets smaller . The less the throw the closer you get to pure rotary motion . That is why the ROTEX 150 will cut faster than the Flex 3401 but the flex will provide a finer finish . I use for instance a Festool LEX 150/11 random orbit with 11mm throw and 16,000opm and a Rupes AK200 planetary sander with 900revs and 11,500opm if you compare numbers the festool is the winner but in reality the one is the greatest RO for fast removal in the world but the Rupes if you try to pin it down it will hurt you since it can not stop because it is driven by gears and it was made to remove paint from all the way to metal in seconds .


----------



## Richardt

3R PROJECT said:


> . They are planetary sanders .


I missed that it was forced rotation on them.


----------



## GJM

Bit of dislike for the Rupes here, words like inferior used...looking to replace Makita and based on Miracle Detail it seems Rupes is nowhere near inferior....discuss?


----------



## Lupostef

I'd be out of the LHR21 just for that massive throw! Had a go with the LHR15 and that was bad enough lol. Imagine trying to get into an edge or corner with a 21mm throw :lol: no hope.


----------



## blackjz

Sorry if I hijack the thread, are the compounds and pads compulsary to use with the bigfoot? or we can use other pads and compounds/polishes? still can't decide which one to get, Rupes LHR15E or the FLex XC3401VRG...


----------



## TOGWT

tzotzo said:


> I am not a scientist but I think that the smaller the orbit is the more times, the pad passes from the same spot. Thus quicke(sic) correction.


The wide random orbital movement reduces the overall polishing time. A machine featuring a large stroke delivers increased speed of backing plate motion using the same OPM setting. A large stroke also increases movement of the backing plate and pad, so levelling of the area is more consistent.


----------



## Kevin Brown

I was searching via Google for something, and found this thread. I love this discussion! A question was recently asked on another forum about the "washer modification", as well as the performance comparisons between the *LHR15ES* and *LHR21ES*. Here are my responses:

"Let's see if I can remember how to do this. Ahem!..."

Several guys asked if I would chime in on this thread. Okay, I'll do it!

Many of the discussions pertaining to the latest detailing trends are not found on detailing forums anymore. This is because the convenience of Facebook has drawn vast amounts of knowledgeable guys away from the forums to groups such as Detailer Buddies, and many other "secret" groups.

I mention this because the "washer mod" debate has played out on the various groups quite some time ago, but then it occasionally resurges. In fact, it has been brought up for discussion again today! A lot has been written about the topic, but the beautiful side of Facebook has an equally-ugly side: it's very difficult to track down old discussions and posts. I know this because it can sometimes take me an hour to recall where the discussion I am looking for emerged.

To be VERY clear, I have the highest level of respect for the Rupes® organization and its employees. The level of enthusiasm and pride in what they are attempting to do is undoubtedly apparent, which is to manufacture and bring to market truly trendsetting, mold-breaking detailing machines & products.

That being said, it's no secret that Marco D'Inca (the engineer responsible for products such as the BigFoot® line of products) and I do not see eye-to-eye on the washer mod aka the "Hi-Speed, Passive Random Rotational Restoration Device!"

Or… something like that.

We've discussed it in person and via e-mails and messaging. Not to say that Marco is wrong, and I am right. No sir! After all, Marco is an engineer, and I am not. For all intents and purposes, I am merely a driver of the BigFoot machine that Marco has so masterfully built, and my vehicle of choice is the LHR21ES. It's a modded-up variant, but it still features a 21mm orbit diameter outfitted with the KBM-HSPRRRD! ☺, and a low-tack original equipment 150mm gray-backed backing plate. Upgraded 16g cord. Micro-polished brushes. And some other stuff I just thought up.

Anyway… I hope it's okay that I post up the latest discussion related to the washer mod. Here's the crux of today's discussion, which began as a question about choosing either the LHR15ES or the LHR21ES. Eventually, the washer mod was brought up, which is why I chimed in:

"As a reseller of the Rupes BigFoot line, I am often asked my opinion on the cutting power of the LHR15ES and LHR21ES machines. Polishing styles and pad/liquid combinations can certainly affect overall performance, but let's sidestep that conversation for now.

The LHR15ES features an additional 600-800 RPM (120v/240v). But really, the added RPM is there to increase backing plate rotation, not so much to allow a guy to polish a particular area 10-13 times more per second! Its important to note that there are a lot of things going on when you extend stroke diameter. One BENEFIT is an ability to deliver a fantastic finish IF you are not using excessive machine speed AND you minimize any buffing pad edge-digging that may occur due to an extended stroke.

Perhaps the following short story will help to clarify why there is such a large difference in cutting power between the two machines. Instead of using millimeters to compare the 15 and 21, the story uses linear feet:

"One day, best friends Timmy and Tommy are hanging around the garage with nothing to do.

At some point, Timmy rifles through a box of junk, eventually finding a piece of string and a tennis ball.

Timmy pokes a hole through both sides of the ball, and fishes the string through the holes. He ties a knot at the end of the string in order to secure the ball onto the string.

The string length measures 7.5 feet.

Timmy takes his newfound toy and spins the ball above his head at a rate of one revolution per second. As the ball whirls around, it creates an orbit diameter of 15 feet.

Timmy takes aim, and smacks Tommy in the chest with the ball.

_"SMACK!"

"OUCH!"_

After some back-and-forth arm punching, things calm down. Timmy eyeballs another piece of string that measures 3 feet in length, and uses it to extend the string on his whirling contraption to 10.5 feet.

To increase the sting, Timmy submerges the ball into a bucket of water and gives the ball a squeeze. As the ball restores its shape, it sucks in enough water to add 3 to 4 ounces of weight to the ball.

Timmy repeats his prank. He whirls the ball above his head at the rate of one revolution per second, and smacks Tommy square in the chest. The added mass of the water combined with the extended length of the string (which increases the ball speed per revolution) makes a *noteworthy* difference in force.

_"SUH-MACK!"

"YEE-OUCH!"

"THWACK!"_

The "thwack" is the sound of Tommy bopping Timmy in the eyeball. For the record... Timmy and Tommy are no longer friends."

Not a perfect comparison, and there are other factors to consider. Either way, when you purchase a Bigfoot…

You're buying a "[email protected]$$" machine!"

*A question is asked*:
"Is the washer mod really necessary for the 21, Kevin Brown?"

*Kevin Brown*:
The machine works well without it. However, I always use my machine with the washer installed. Polishing styles dictate whether you'll notice a difference when using the spacer. For example, let's compare two very different heavy-cut polishing methods, and assume that the panel being polished is perfectly flat.

The first method uses a typical foam cutting pad that is relatively rigid and porous (the Rupes blue or green pad would fall into this category), and 5-7 drops of buffing compound. In this case, the machine should be capable of delivering an ample amount of backing plate rotation.

However, if you use a method similar to mine, which is:

A microfiber cutting pad whose face has been fully primed with an abrasive-laden buffing compound (in attempt to "prime", "dress", or "prep" each individual microfiber string so that there is a maximum level of abrasive action in play).

Which of these two setups will likely create immensely more friction between the pad and paint? It's VERY likely that mine will. Consequently, it's also very likely that because of the added friction, the backing plate will be more apt to slow or stall altogether. The addition of the spacer enables the machine to deliver maximum backing plate rotation. Should I find it unnecessary to employ maximum plate rotation, I can simply dial down the machine speed. In doing so, several positive things can occur, including:

• The machine runs at a lower RPM, thus potentially extending its life, while keeping its internal parts cooler.

• User experience should be better, as there will be less high-rpm vibration, and the machine will be easier to manage since it is running at a lower speed (debatable).

• The buffing pad's attachment material, adhesives, and foam structure will likely last longer since heat and ferocious motion of its foam will be lessened.

• Buffing liquids should have their buffing cycles extended (this is a debatable topic, better discussed another time!)

There are a couple of other benefits, but the point is that I do not see any detriment to using the spacer. And for every argument against it, I can make a tremendous opposing argument for it. Really though, the easiest thing to do is to use the machine as-is. If you are satisfied with its overall performance... Perfect! However, if you feel that there are some shortcomings with the machine's polishing ability, try another pad, or pad design, or choose another polishing liquid. If you're still curious after implementing various pad & liquid changes... slip in a spacer and judge for yourself!

For me, it made all the difference." End.


----------



## BRUNBERG

Thanks for the helpful input


----------

