Welcome!
» Log In
» Create A New Profile
Home
>
Auto Detailing: Secrets of the Experts
>
Topic
Buffers
Posted by Stephen Bruno
|
Buffers April 28, 2006 02:19PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3 |
|
Re: Buffers April 28, 2006 02:24PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3 |
|
Re: Buffers May 05, 2006 01:00PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 18 |
<HTML>if you are just starting out, i would avoid using a rotary buffer until you get the proper training and experience on it. an inexperienced user can do a world of damage with a high speed rotary buffer. if you can, try to practice on junk/wrecked car panels. it will make you more confident in using the rotary.</HTML>
|
Re: Buffers May 05, 2006 11:30PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>If you are only going to apply wax to cars then a dual action or orbital is fine to apply the chemical. These tools are not really buffers or polishers, they are more of an applicator. You can get more pressure and friction with your hand than you can with an orbital or dual action
If you think you are going to correct paint finish problems then you must have a rotary buffer to create friction and heat.
Bud Abraham
DETAIL PLUS SYSTEMS</HTML>
buda
If you think you are going to correct paint finish problems then you must have a rotary buffer to create friction and heat.
Bud Abraham
DETAIL PLUS SYSTEMS</HTML>
buda
|
Re: Buffers May 07, 2006 01:53PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 59 |
<HTML>Actually, the dual-action tool can very much be considered a buffer, and in fact... IS in most savvy detailing circles.
Reason: The variable-speed D-A (pneumatic or electric) is not like the larger dual handled orbital, although many people liken the two because of their buffing characteristics. It's dual action is a much tighter controlled, mechanically integrated motion. So, when you interchange various buffing pads with varying degrees of speed and abrasion, you can polish. Match the pads up with various degrees of aggressive cleaning and polishing products, and you find that it can do almost anything a rotary buffer can... except the real aggressive cutting required for serious scratch removal. The amount of high-speed rotary buffing is diminishing due to newer paint requirements, so the D-A may be something to revisit... if you've been mislead into thinking of it only as an applicator. It's much, much more... or at least, can be.
A well-equipped detailer should have a comprehensive array of buffing pads and job-matched buffing chemicals for both buffers; rotary and dual-action.
The large 5-6 pound GEM or its knockoffs started out as a rotary floor polisher with an elipticle crank that provided an egg-shaped orbit within the circular orbit; a much looser track. The handles were added to make it a polisher, and it also polishes, if the proper pads and products are utilized. The originator of the GEM design was actually a discarded single-head prototype of the Cyclo.
Just a little bit more information you might find useful.
-Steve
www.SMOKUN.com</HTML>
Reason: The variable-speed D-A (pneumatic or electric) is not like the larger dual handled orbital, although many people liken the two because of their buffing characteristics. It's dual action is a much tighter controlled, mechanically integrated motion. So, when you interchange various buffing pads with varying degrees of speed and abrasion, you can polish. Match the pads up with various degrees of aggressive cleaning and polishing products, and you find that it can do almost anything a rotary buffer can... except the real aggressive cutting required for serious scratch removal. The amount of high-speed rotary buffing is diminishing due to newer paint requirements, so the D-A may be something to revisit... if you've been mislead into thinking of it only as an applicator. It's much, much more... or at least, can be.
A well-equipped detailer should have a comprehensive array of buffing pads and job-matched buffing chemicals for both buffers; rotary and dual-action.
The large 5-6 pound GEM or its knockoffs started out as a rotary floor polisher with an elipticle crank that provided an egg-shaped orbit within the circular orbit; a much looser track. The handles were added to make it a polisher, and it also polishes, if the proper pads and products are utilized. The originator of the GEM design was actually a discarded single-head prototype of the Cyclo.
Just a little bit more information you might find useful.
-Steve
www.SMOKUN.com</HTML>
|
Re: Buffers May 07, 2006 03:19PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Steve:
There is a difference between removing and filling in and covering over. What most detailers tell me is that true buffer swirls are only filled in with an orbital, not removed, even using "various pads" and polishes.
It is all about friction and heat and that comes from a rotary buffer.
Not to disagree that there is not a place for an orbital, but a detailer has to understand what tools will and will not do.
Personally, why would you want to have a rotary with a selection of buffing and finishing pads and also an orbital with an array of buffer and polishing pads?
It is much easier to reduce things to their common denominator.
A rotary buffer to correct and swirl-remove/polish and an orbital to apply and remove wax.
The reality is that most "experienced" detailers do not even use an orbital for application. I cannot tell you the number of detail shops I have been in where the orbital is sitting on a shelf with dust all over it.
Regards
Bud Abraham
DETAIL PLUS SYSTEMS</HTML>
buda
There is a difference between removing and filling in and covering over. What most detailers tell me is that true buffer swirls are only filled in with an orbital, not removed, even using "various pads" and polishes.
It is all about friction and heat and that comes from a rotary buffer.
Not to disagree that there is not a place for an orbital, but a detailer has to understand what tools will and will not do.
Personally, why would you want to have a rotary with a selection of buffing and finishing pads and also an orbital with an array of buffer and polishing pads?
It is much easier to reduce things to their common denominator.
A rotary buffer to correct and swirl-remove/polish and an orbital to apply and remove wax.
The reality is that most "experienced" detailers do not even use an orbital for application. I cannot tell you the number of detail shops I have been in where the orbital is sitting on a shelf with dust all over it.
Regards
Bud Abraham
DETAIL PLUS SYSTEMS</HTML>
buda
|
Re: Buffers May 07, 2006 07:03PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 118 |
|
Re: Buffers May 07, 2006 07:31PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Steve:
While I respect your caution with regard to using a rotary buffer, I do not think it is rocket science.
If a person knows that he does not know; and he knows what he does not know----and he is willing to think-----he can operate a buffer cautiously.
As stated numerous times, I have trained people overseas that have never had a buffer or even a wax pad in their hands before to use one in a couple of days.
What seems to be the common demoninator is knowing the particulars of the paint they are working on; recognizing the problem and how to correct it and to what extent; then realizing what the tool will and will not do; what the various pads will and will not do; same for the compounds and making the right call on which to use.
Most problems come from a lack of mental knowledge, not physical ability to use the buffer. Most detailers do not understand paint finishes; paint finish problems; how to correct them and really do not understand the differences between buffing pads and compounds.
If you know all of this anyone with any dexterity, and the ability and willingness to think, can use a buffer.
Regards
Bud Abraham
DETAIL PLUS SYSTEMS</HTML>
buda
While I respect your caution with regard to using a rotary buffer, I do not think it is rocket science.
If a person knows that he does not know; and he knows what he does not know----and he is willing to think-----he can operate a buffer cautiously.
As stated numerous times, I have trained people overseas that have never had a buffer or even a wax pad in their hands before to use one in a couple of days.
What seems to be the common demoninator is knowing the particulars of the paint they are working on; recognizing the problem and how to correct it and to what extent; then realizing what the tool will and will not do; what the various pads will and will not do; same for the compounds and making the right call on which to use.
Most problems come from a lack of mental knowledge, not physical ability to use the buffer. Most detailers do not understand paint finishes; paint finish problems; how to correct them and really do not understand the differences between buffing pads and compounds.
If you know all of this anyone with any dexterity, and the ability and willingness to think, can use a buffer.
Regards
Bud Abraham
DETAIL PLUS SYSTEMS</HTML>
buda
|
Re: Buffers May 08, 2006 12:31AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 59 |
<HTML>Bud, et al...
I agree that learning how to use a rotary buffer isn't difficult. Rather, it's intimidating to many new detailers. All of us who've trained detailers in improving their buffing skills probably recognize that the greatest challenge is to overcome the fear of the tool due to the horror stories taht preceed the learning curve. Whether its a strangle grip on the buffer... or fighting instead of finessing the pad angle, once the student gains adequate confidence in working the buffer... it's a breeze.
One thing I caution is glossing over the significant differences between an "orbital" and a dual-action buffer. The orbital is more of a tool for the untrained staff that simply uses it as a harmless application tool.
Contrary to your broad brush comparison, I do not view the dual-action as being in the same league as the orbital. By orbital, I reference it as a dual handle GEM or Waxcoa/Cahmberlain or a similar less aggressive tool like the WEN. Even the Cyclo (the grand-daddy of them all) is safe enough for a monkey to use.
However, the D-A is a precision tool. Once it is matched up with a variety of pads and chemical elizers, it can be a formidable tool. True, it will not rival the rotary for aggressive paint correction, but it will hold its own in everyday polishing.
Yes, if you mount a marshmallow pad designed for a finishing application, it won't show much polishing ability. But that is mainly because the mix of tool, products and pads needs to be dialed in... as it is in every other buffing procedure.
I've worked on the business end of a buffer since 1961... and have seen much come and go. As you know, I've also assited some of the finest manufacturers hone their product lines, including recognizing and recruiting the first electric D-As made by Porter-cable and Flex into our industry.
You and I share a preference for pneumatic buffers... as well as respecting a lot of other philosophical concepts...which is why I wish to draw a distinction between the "orbital"... and a quality precision tool such as a D-A. In the right hands, it is a valuable addition the the detailer's arsenal of technology. Broad brush classifications don't help newcomers... and the generalities that accompany the commentary may confound their learning curve.
As Joe might agree, there are a lot of weapons out there... but one of the most dangerous is a Marine and his rifle. Why? As a unit, it's a very sophistocated, technical fighting machine. Likewise, the right detailing tool... in a knowledgeably skilled hands... can do wonders.
If we can't actually agree on this one, let's simply "agree to disagree".
A few well-intentioned thoughts...
-Steve</HTML>
I agree that learning how to use a rotary buffer isn't difficult. Rather, it's intimidating to many new detailers. All of us who've trained detailers in improving their buffing skills probably recognize that the greatest challenge is to overcome the fear of the tool due to the horror stories taht preceed the learning curve. Whether its a strangle grip on the buffer... or fighting instead of finessing the pad angle, once the student gains adequate confidence in working the buffer... it's a breeze.
One thing I caution is glossing over the significant differences between an "orbital" and a dual-action buffer. The orbital is more of a tool for the untrained staff that simply uses it as a harmless application tool.
Contrary to your broad brush comparison, I do not view the dual-action as being in the same league as the orbital. By orbital, I reference it as a dual handle GEM or Waxcoa/Cahmberlain or a similar less aggressive tool like the WEN. Even the Cyclo (the grand-daddy of them all) is safe enough for a monkey to use.
However, the D-A is a precision tool. Once it is matched up with a variety of pads and chemical elizers, it can be a formidable tool. True, it will not rival the rotary for aggressive paint correction, but it will hold its own in everyday polishing.
Yes, if you mount a marshmallow pad designed for a finishing application, it won't show much polishing ability. But that is mainly because the mix of tool, products and pads needs to be dialed in... as it is in every other buffing procedure.
I've worked on the business end of a buffer since 1961... and have seen much come and go. As you know, I've also assited some of the finest manufacturers hone their product lines, including recognizing and recruiting the first electric D-As made by Porter-cable and Flex into our industry.
You and I share a preference for pneumatic buffers... as well as respecting a lot of other philosophical concepts...which is why I wish to draw a distinction between the "orbital"... and a quality precision tool such as a D-A. In the right hands, it is a valuable addition the the detailer's arsenal of technology. Broad brush classifications don't help newcomers... and the generalities that accompany the commentary may confound their learning curve.
As Joe might agree, there are a lot of weapons out there... but one of the most dangerous is a Marine and his rifle. Why? As a unit, it's a very sophistocated, technical fighting machine. Likewise, the right detailing tool... in a knowledgeably skilled hands... can do wonders.
If we can't actually agree on this one, let's simply "agree to disagree".
A few well-intentioned thoughts...
-Steve</HTML>
|
Re: Buffers December 05, 2007 04:28PM |
Registered: 16 years ago Posts: 33 |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.