With the input from several of the Rupes team - especially Fabrizio and his exotic accent - this is a fantastic way to address the differences of rotary vs. gear driven. Jason, I’m lucky to have met you in person, Auckland NZ, and your signature survives on my Mille and Nano - I try not to wear it off! - I still remember how slowly and carefully you moved that polisher across the panel to get such amazing results. Training sessions are extremely important to get the best from any of the equipment. I notice one category not considered here - operator comfort. My Rupes journey began with an LHR15ES about seven years ago, I remember thinking the gears and bearings were not as smooth as the typical 8mm DA I had before - nowadays I use a Mille which is fast and effective but rather heavy work to use; and again the gears of the machine seem to cause a vibration/tingling in the fingers after a couple of hours’ use. Then there is the steering effect of the machine, which can be hard on arms and shoulders. I’m thinking of going back to the DA movement, perhaps with the little old Duetto (I like the smaller size, seems I’d be less likely to be gripping the handle too tightly when there isn’t one) to try and reduce the vibration and discomfort from using the machine. I’d like to know how that aspect compares in your official experience between gear driven and random orbital. I’m sure you have some way to measure it! Thank you for the presentation and for your in-person training, hope to see you again soon
Thanks for your comments! Relative to competitive products in their respective categories, BigFoot polishers always boast best in class ergonomics and operator comfort. Certainly the "steering" effect of the Mille can be bothersome to some people. The smaller offset relative to other orbital tools, and the purpose built consumables that help smooth our tools movements mitigate some of it, but there is no way around the push-pull of a forced rotation tool.
@@RUPES thank you for your reply. Yes, as you say, the steering effect is unavoidable but can be minimised. I found I can minimise it to my satisfaction by using a clean pad primed sufficiently with the correct compound - and also, by increasing tool speed and reducing pressure applied to the tool. I believe it is more the vibration - a granular kind of vibration - that causes me trouble, which seems to result from the gears of the machine. I’m interested to know if you have vibration measurements to compare across your random orbital and gear-driven tools, please.
Great video! I’ve tried both tools and definitely prefer the comfort of the RO and the cutting/finishing ability. My biggest complaint with gear driven is the lack of finishing quality on softer paint, especially non-metallic black paint. The tool becomes essentially unusable.
Great videos. Thanks for sharing all your tips. I have a quick question which I haven't seen answered before. Can the Mille be used for sanding if paired with the Rupes X-Cut foam discs?
What about maintaining the polishers? I just bought the Big Foot Random Orbital and want it to last as long as possible. What do you recommend for maintenance?
We used to have separate systems for mille and random orbital, but with the release of the D-A System in 2020, all the pads for that system are compatible with both tools. The introduction webinar for the D-A System is linked below: ua-cam.com/video/tUoTMl2HZfc/v-deo.html
Hello RUPES, greetings from India. I have a question. How to maintain tool life? Do we need to grease between the backing plate and tool occasionally? If so, what would be the apt way? Just a suggestion, Maybe you can do a video on this content on your Rupes Replies Playlist. Like how to maintain our tools and make most out of it. Thanks
So, what would happen then if you guys made a gear driven 21? Probably still wouldn’t produce the same clarity as the random orbit because the rotation is forced yes?
Interesting question and we can only really theorize because it would require some incredibly tricky engineering to make that into reality. The 21mm orbit, while developed to be smooth now in the LHR21 is incredibly violent and would be difficult to mate to a gearset without encountering issues. However, the actual pattern of the movement, as you alluded to, is the bigger issue. A gear driven movement, no matter what size the offset, will always move in star-like pattern. The orbits have points. It is also a pattern, repeating movement. The human eye is trained to see patterns and pick them up, this is why we can see the holograms produced from a rotary tool so easily even though they are shallow in most cases. A gear driven mitigates SOME of that, but not all of it. There is still a pattern to the movement and the potential for a visible scratch pattern. The benefit of random rotation means that the pattern produced by the tool is constantly changing, moves in more arcing loops, and cross hatches itself in infinitely variable directions. Long story short, you're probably right in your assumption - even if you increase the orbit size of the gear driven, you still have a repeating pattern and a sharp movement. For now we can only theorize based on what we know, but who knows - maybe someday we'll make a 21mm Mille 😂
@@RUPES So by that assertion as well, those who think they can finish down totally flat with a rotary from cut to finish are incorrect because of the constant rotation of the tool, even when using a finishing foam and finishing polish? And lol yes, a 21mm gear driven would be interesting 🤣
How noticable is the finishing ability for a random orbital compared to a gear driven? I own a rotary but the downside is the obvious ability to finish to a standard close to random orbital. However, I hate the idea of reaching for a second tool when tackling body line/contours so random orbital is putting me off in that respect.
There are a lot of factors that would contribute to answering that question that are different in every situation, and it is important to understand that it isn't necessarily a "percentage better" type of advantage. The best way to think of it is the higher potential for finish quality in most situations. Your eyes are trained to see patterns. That is why a rotary hologram is easy to see. By their very nature, random orbital tools don't produce a visible pattern on the finish. Gear driven does because the movement is consistent and locked together, but to a far lesser degree than rotary. So long story short, you could get a very high finish with either tool movment, but you may have to "finesse things" more with the Mille to get the same finish level that is easily achieved with a large stroke random orbital tool.
A lot depends just on personal preference. What matters most is you're getting the results you want with the tool that works best for you. The content in this webinar is to establish the advantages each tool offers in general terms, but certainly a highly skilled operator who is comfortable with one movement or the other can push it to achieve better results using technique. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Hi. Thank you for teaching us all those tips. I have a question , in the minute 9:30 Fabrizio was talking about gear driven machines and in the background the video showed a guy with a mini. Is that gear driven? If yes I would buy it with no hesitation. Thank you guys.
Hi rupes, thanks for this webinar. I would like clarification on something. Todd stated that rupes invented the gear driven movement. What about the festo rotex that came out in the early 80s and is still available today under the festool name. That predates the gear driven machine you made in the 90s. Now yes the rotex is mainly a sander but its still gear driven. Also im pretty certain that dynabrade created the original large orbit tools in 2007-08, i still have them. Now yes you massively evolved it and make the best examples and unlike all the tool companies i contacted globally you did what i wanted. Large orbit is another thing youve claimed as your invention. I mean no disrespect as im nothing compared to the brilliance of the people at rupes but i definately want people to know what the truth is about these things
Thanks Matthew for the support, questions, and comments! The RUPES EK150 began production just prior to 1996, and is, to the very best of our knowledge, the first gear-driven movement to be used for polishing and sanding. RUPES has drawings and ideas for a gear-driven movement to be used exclusively for sanding as far back as the 1970s, and our understanding is the first machines to use this style of movement where pneumatic sanders marketed as “mud hogs” in the US market. In terms of the large stroke random orbital, remember that Cyclo is a part of the RUPES family of tools. Very few people realize that it was the first large orbit polisher (as far as we are aware) with a 16mm orbit per head. The prototypes and patent drawings from 1950 put that way ahead of any dedicated large orbit tools or adapters for rotary tools to create a large orbit. The first Cyclos, produced for sale in 1953 are the very first large orbit tools documented (again, as far as we're aware) and they are a part of the RUPES collection of intellectual property. BigFoot, in particular the LHR21 and LHR15 are certainly the face of large orbit polishing as a dedicated tool, not an adapter, but there was an even earlier version known as the LHR150. This was a pneumatic 10mm (still large orbit) polisher that went into production around 2008, but was in development from as early as 2003.
@@RUPES thanks guys i didnt know that about cyclo. Maybe then festools claim on their website of creating the first gear driven sander/polisher with random orbital mode as well is either the first to go to market or is incorrect. Rotex is certainly not without a few issues like rattle and loud noise, gets hot, i did testing for them (their request) of their entire range of equipment and liquids so ive done the miles with the rotex
In the end there are probably a number of debates between who files design patents, gets to market, and other subtleties that could be had. In the end doesn't necessarily always matter who was first, but who was best. I think few people could disagree that we took large-diameter random orbital to a whole new level with the BigFoot range - if we didn't there wouldn't be so many low-quality direct copies ;) As always, thanks for your candor and engagement with our videos Matthew.
@@RUPES yes you certainly have done that and im glad you did. The industry needed it, so many tool companies dont even go beyond what they've always done. Heres a rotary, thats all you need. Now i love rotary but it ain't perfect and even i wouldn't use a rotary exclusively all the time. If they had listened to me eight years ago (and other people probably too) dual, variable and possibly adjustable orbit (select any orbit you like from 0-26mm) polishers would of been out sooner than the udos but they didnt listen. Thats where Rupes stands alone. You did what all the others failed to do. Love my mk III 15 i just got.
@@matthewgibb2640 Hey Matt are you posting your work anywhere? I've followed you in the past. You do great work and were always testing new process for better results.
I have been bidding cars for 35 plus yrs, I have only owned (2) RO machines and IMO they are ok at best……I had the Bigfoot 15mm stroke and a smaller Maxshine for applying waxes,Sealants etc. I am not a fan of the RO at all I would grab my rotary any day over the RO. I have since ordered the Mille just to give it a try, not here yet, But I will eventually give it a fair shake. I can see where the RO would be ok using a one step, or for a detail shop trying to get a descent look for least amount of time spent for making money. Back in the late 80’s and 90’s when I had my detail shop this would have been a great option. but I guarantee you that head to head on a show car wet sanded surface (3000) I will get a better finish in the end with (3) steps using polish Angle with my rotary than you would using the RO with less effort, less time and only needing (1) machine.
Respectfully disagree Ron, but in the end use what works best for you. In the hands of a properly trained operator we have the ability to go from 3000 grit sand scratch to high-gloss finish in a single step vs. the 3+ steps it takes the typical rotary operator. There is a learning curve and a whole technique to get your head around in order to do that, but we can assure you it is absolutely possible. Some of the most respected builders and painters in the world use our D-A System every single day to cut and polish their finishes. Just one example being Charley Hutton - BigFoot Random Orbital tools have completely replaced rotary in his shop, and I think most people would agree Charley does paint on a level not many others do. Hear it in his own words here - ua-cam.com/video/x_kRbdW8_f8/v-deo.html You should use whatever works best for you and your needs, but to say that a 3 step rotary process is faster or produces a better result than can be had with a modern large stroke random orbital tool and proper technique is categorically incorrect. No one tool or system is 100% right for 100% of the situations, which is why we have a range in every major tool movement category. However, there are indisputable facts about the capabilities of each system that are true regardless of preferences or bias.
I've always wanted a 2"/3" in gear drive. I think it would be life changing🤔. I'm surprised that no tool manufacturer has developed a small gear drive polisher.
@@MrSulkow1 certainly something we can consider, but logically not sure it solves any problems. When dealing with edgework the existing options check the boxes. With the existing options a small random orbital gives the operator safety when needed, but the offset makes it less precise. A small rotary, because the edge speed drops so dramatically, is actually quite safe and with zero offset the precision is maximized. Is there a particular application or logic for why you would want a gear-driven edgework tool?
Guys C'mon 1hr videos and some even longer? MAKITA P05000C is 2 in 1 polisher. The only one with the switch to go random orbit with forced rotation or random orbit with free rotation.😎
Thanks for your comment. This is a webinar recording, which will always be longer format as it is an educational presentation done for our CORE Series. If you prefer shorter form content, the majority of the content on our channel is short form like the RUPES Replies series, or the BigFoot 101 series. We suggest you check those out if you prefer more "bite sized" content. To the comments about other polishers, you are correct, that tool does have the ability to switch, however you misdefined the movements. It is not random orbital with forced rotation (not possible) it is a gear-driven orbital or free spinning orbital. The free spinning random orbital mode still maintains the very small orbit of the gear-driven mode when the driven rotation is not engaged, making its capability for correction in that setting incredibly low when compared to the 12, 15, or 21mm orbits of our random orbital tools. If you enjoy that tool, great, however "2 in 1" means very little, when 1 of the 2 doesn't have much capability or usefulness. Thanks again for commenting though!
![BigFoot 101: Definitions and Defects [Chapter 01]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uxAfYKK6DcE/mqdefault.jpg)
![BigFoot 101: Definitions and Defects [Chapter 01]](/img/tr.png)
I learn so much from you guys, thank you all, keep up the good work and can wait for the next one. 🇵🇷
Great to hear. Thank you for watching and commenting.
Thank you. I am not a professional and will stick to a D/A polisher.
Thanks so much for uploading. I love my Mille!
Thanks for watching!
With the input from several of the Rupes team - especially Fabrizio and his exotic accent - this is a fantastic way to address the differences of rotary vs. gear driven.
Jason, I’m lucky to have met you in person, Auckland NZ, and your signature survives on my Mille and Nano - I try not to wear it off! - I still remember how slowly and carefully you moved that polisher across the panel to get such amazing results. Training sessions are extremely important to get the best from any of the equipment.
I notice one category not considered here - operator comfort.
My Rupes journey began with an LHR15ES about seven years ago, I remember thinking the gears and bearings were not as smooth as the typical 8mm DA I had before - nowadays I use a Mille which is fast and effective but rather heavy work to use; and again the gears of the machine seem to cause a vibration/tingling in the fingers after a couple of hours’ use. Then there is the steering effect of the machine, which can be hard on arms and shoulders.
I’m thinking of going back to the DA movement, perhaps with the little old Duetto (I like the smaller size, seems I’d be less likely to be gripping the handle too tightly when there isn’t one) to try and reduce the vibration and discomfort from using the machine.
I’d like to know how that aspect compares in your official experience between gear driven and random orbital. I’m sure you have some way to measure it!
Thank you for the presentation and for your in-person training, hope to see you again soon
Thanks for your comments! Relative to competitive products in their respective categories, BigFoot polishers always boast best in class ergonomics and operator comfort. Certainly the "steering" effect of the Mille can be bothersome to some people. The smaller offset relative to other orbital tools, and the purpose built consumables that help smooth our tools movements mitigate some of it, but there is no way around the push-pull of a forced rotation tool.
@@RUPES thank you for your reply. Yes, as you say, the steering effect is unavoidable but can be minimised. I found I can minimise it to my satisfaction by using a clean pad primed sufficiently with the correct compound - and also, by increasing tool speed and reducing pressure applied to the tool.
I believe it is more the vibration - a granular kind of vibration - that causes me trouble, which seems to result from the gears of the machine. I’m interested to know if you have vibration measurements to compare across your random orbital and gear-driven tools, please.
I have gear driven tools soooo much of a chance, but at the end of the day, I cannot stand them.
Great video! I’ve tried both tools and definitely prefer the comfort of the RO and the cutting/finishing ability. My biggest complaint with gear driven is the lack of finishing quality on softer paint, especially non-metallic black paint. The tool becomes essentially unusable.
Thanks for watching and sharing your feedback.
Very informative, comprehensive and clear layout to the video. Sure helped me alot to come to my decision when purchasing
Great. Glad it was helpful!!
RUPES #1 🇺🇸 saludos desde Puerto Rico 🇵🇷 Thank You 👍
Thanks for watching!
Great videos. Thanks for sharing all your tips. I have a quick question which I haven't seen answered before. Can the Mille be used for sanding if paired with the Rupes X-Cut foam discs?
Very much obliged Sirs
Mr Jason Rose See You Again In Rupes Indonesia 🇮🇩
another as always very useful webinar
What about maintaining the polishers? I just bought the Big Foot Random Orbital and want it to last as long as possible. What do you recommend for maintenance?
We have a video just for that question! ua-cam.com/video/0NcJjHLZ4AQ/v-deo.html
Hi Do you have to use dedicated mille pad on the mille or can you use standard long throw pads ???
We used to have separate systems for mille and random orbital, but with the release of the D-A System in 2020, all the pads for that system are compatible with both tools. The introduction webinar for the D-A System is linked below:
ua-cam.com/video/tUoTMl2HZfc/v-deo.html
Hello RUPES, greetings from India. I have a question. How to maintain tool life? Do we need to grease between the backing plate and tool occasionally? If so, what would be the apt way? Just a suggestion, Maybe you can do a video on this content on your Rupes Replies Playlist. Like how to maintain our tools and make most out of it. Thanks
Hello Vikash! We actually already have that video in the RUPES Replies playlist - enjoy!
ua-cam.com/video/0NcJjHLZ4AQ/v-deo.html
@@RUPES thank you😁 wondering how I missed that🙄😅
So, what would happen then if you guys made a gear driven 21? Probably still wouldn’t produce the same clarity as the random orbit because the rotation is forced yes?
Interesting question and we can only really theorize because it would require some incredibly tricky engineering to make that into reality. The 21mm orbit, while developed to be smooth now in the LHR21 is incredibly violent and would be difficult to mate to a gearset without encountering issues. However, the actual pattern of the movement, as you alluded to, is the bigger issue. A gear driven movement, no matter what size the offset, will always move in star-like pattern. The orbits have points. It is also a pattern, repeating movement. The human eye is trained to see patterns and pick them up, this is why we can see the holograms produced from a rotary tool so easily even though they are shallow in most cases. A gear driven mitigates SOME of that, but not all of it. There is still a pattern to the movement and the potential for a visible scratch pattern. The benefit of random rotation means that the pattern produced by the tool is constantly changing, moves in more arcing loops, and cross hatches itself in infinitely variable directions.
Long story short, you're probably right in your assumption - even if you increase the orbit size of the gear driven, you still have a repeating pattern and a sharp movement. For now we can only theorize based on what we know, but who knows - maybe someday we'll make a 21mm Mille 😂
@@RUPES So by that assertion as well, those who think they can finish down totally flat with a rotary from cut to finish are incorrect because of the constant rotation of the tool, even when using a finishing foam and finishing polish? And lol yes, a 21mm gear driven would be interesting 🤣
How noticable is the finishing ability for a random orbital compared to a gear driven?
I own a rotary but the downside is the obvious ability to finish to a standard close to random orbital. However, I hate the idea of reaching for a second tool when tackling body line/contours so random orbital is putting me off in that respect.
There are a lot of factors that would contribute to answering that question that are different in every situation, and it is important to understand that it isn't necessarily a "percentage better" type of advantage. The best way to think of it is the higher potential for finish quality in most situations. Your eyes are trained to see patterns. That is why a rotary hologram is easy to see. By their very nature, random orbital tools don't produce a visible pattern on the finish. Gear driven does because the movement is consistent and locked together, but to a far lesser degree than rotary.
So long story short, you could get a very high finish with either tool movment, but you may have to "finesse things" more with the Mille to get the same finish level that is easily achieved with a large stroke random orbital tool.
MkIII 21mm. I use most. With the best results . For me. I'll cut. Once in a while with gear driven.
A lot depends just on personal preference. What matters most is you're getting the results you want with the tool that works best for you. The content in this webinar is to establish the advantages each tool offers in general terms, but certainly a highly skilled operator who is comfortable with one movement or the other can push it to achieve better results using technique. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Gear driven always.
Great. Thanks for your input!
Hi. Thank you for teaching us all those tips. I have a question , in the minute 9:30 Fabrizio was talking about gear driven machines and in the background the video showed a guy with a mini. Is that gear driven? If yes I would buy it with no hesitation. Thank you guys.
We don’t manufacture a gear driven mini. Sorry.
Hi rupes, thanks for this webinar. I would like clarification on something. Todd stated that rupes invented the gear driven movement. What about the festo rotex that came out in the early 80s and is still available today under the festool name. That predates the gear driven machine you made in the 90s. Now yes the rotex is mainly a sander but its still gear driven. Also im pretty certain that dynabrade created the original large orbit tools in 2007-08, i still have them. Now yes you massively evolved it and make the best examples and unlike all the tool companies i contacted globally you did what i wanted. Large orbit is another thing youve claimed as your invention. I mean no disrespect as im nothing compared to the brilliance of the people at rupes but i definately want people to know what the truth is about these things
Thanks Matthew for the support, questions, and comments! The RUPES EK150 began production just prior to 1996, and is, to the very best of our knowledge, the first gear-driven movement to be used for polishing and sanding. RUPES has drawings and ideas for a gear-driven movement to be used exclusively for sanding as far back as the 1970s, and our understanding is the first machines to use this style of movement where pneumatic sanders marketed as “mud hogs” in the US market.
In terms of the large stroke random orbital, remember that Cyclo is a part of the RUPES family of tools. Very few people realize that it was the first large orbit polisher (as far as we are aware) with a 16mm orbit per head. The prototypes and patent drawings from 1950 put that way ahead of any dedicated large orbit tools or adapters for rotary tools to create a large orbit. The first Cyclos, produced for sale in 1953 are the very first large orbit tools documented (again, as far as we're aware) and they are a part of the RUPES collection of intellectual property.
BigFoot, in particular the LHR21 and LHR15 are certainly the face of large orbit polishing as a dedicated tool, not an adapter, but there was an even earlier version known as the LHR150. This was a pneumatic 10mm (still large orbit) polisher that went into production around 2008, but was in development from as early as 2003.
@@RUPES thanks guys i didnt know that about cyclo. Maybe then festools claim on their website of creating the first gear driven sander/polisher with random orbital mode as well is either the first to go to market or is incorrect. Rotex is certainly not without a few issues like rattle and loud noise, gets hot, i did testing for them (their request) of their entire range of equipment and liquids so ive done the miles with the rotex
In the end there are probably a number of debates between who files design patents, gets to market, and other subtleties that could be had. In the end doesn't necessarily always matter who was first, but who was best. I think few people could disagree that we took large-diameter random orbital to a whole new level with the BigFoot range - if we didn't there wouldn't be so many low-quality direct copies ;)
As always, thanks for your candor and engagement with our videos Matthew.
@@RUPES yes you certainly have done that and im glad you did. The industry needed it, so many tool companies dont even go beyond what they've always done. Heres a rotary, thats all you need. Now i love rotary but it ain't perfect and even i wouldn't use a rotary exclusively all the time. If they had listened to me eight years ago (and other people probably too) dual, variable and possibly adjustable orbit (select any orbit you like from 0-26mm) polishers would of been out sooner than the udos but they didnt listen. Thats where Rupes stands alone. You did what all the others failed to do. Love my mk III 15 i just got.
@@matthewgibb2640 Hey Matt are you posting your work anywhere? I've followed you in the past. You do great work and were always testing new process for better results.
I have been bidding cars for 35 plus yrs, I have only owned (2) RO machines and IMO they are ok at best……I had the Bigfoot 15mm stroke and a smaller Maxshine for applying waxes,Sealants etc. I am not a fan of the RO at all I would grab my rotary any day over the RO.
I have since ordered the Mille just to give it a try, not here yet, But I will eventually give it a fair shake. I can see where the RO would be ok using a one step, or for a detail shop trying to get a descent look for least amount of time spent for making money.
Back in the late 80’s and 90’s when I had my detail shop this would have been a great option. but I guarantee you that head to head on a show car wet sanded surface (3000) I will get a better finish in the end with (3) steps using polish Angle with my rotary than you would using the RO with less effort, less time and only needing (1) machine.
Respectfully disagree Ron, but in the end use what works best for you. In the hands of a properly trained operator we have the ability to go from 3000 grit sand scratch to high-gloss finish in a single step vs. the 3+ steps it takes the typical rotary operator. There is a learning curve and a whole technique to get your head around in order to do that, but we can assure you it is absolutely possible. Some of the most respected builders and painters in the world use our D-A System every single day to cut and polish their finishes. Just one example being Charley Hutton - BigFoot Random Orbital tools have completely replaced rotary in his shop, and I think most people would agree Charley does paint on a level not many others do. Hear it in his own words here - ua-cam.com/video/x_kRbdW8_f8/v-deo.html
You should use whatever works best for you and your needs, but to say that a 3 step rotary process is faster or produces a better result than can be had with a modern large stroke random orbital tool and proper technique is categorically incorrect. No one tool or system is 100% right for 100% of the situations, which is why we have a range in every major tool movement category. However, there are indisputable facts about the capabilities of each system that are true regardless of preferences or bias.
Gear driven 75 mm Please!
Interesting suggestion, and one we've heard before. We'll pass it along to the development team.
I've always wanted a 2"/3" in gear drive. I think it would be life changing🤔. I'm surprised that no tool manufacturer has developed a small gear drive polisher.
@@MrSulkow1 certainly something we can consider, but logically not sure it solves any problems. When dealing with edgework the existing options check the boxes. With the existing options a small random orbital gives the operator safety when needed, but the offset makes it less precise. A small rotary, because the edge speed drops so dramatically, is actually quite safe and with zero offset the precision is maximized. Is there a particular application or logic for why you would want a gear-driven edgework tool?
Guys C'mon 1hr videos and some even longer? MAKITA P05000C is 2 in 1 polisher. The only one with the switch to go random orbit with forced rotation or random orbit with free rotation.😎
Thanks for your comment. This is a webinar recording, which will always be longer format as it is an educational presentation done for our CORE Series. If you prefer shorter form content, the majority of the content on our channel is short form like the RUPES Replies series, or the BigFoot 101 series. We suggest you check those out if you prefer more "bite sized" content.
To the comments about other polishers, you are correct, that tool does have the ability to switch, however you misdefined the movements. It is not random orbital with forced rotation (not possible) it is a gear-driven orbital or free spinning orbital. The free spinning random orbital mode still maintains the very small orbit of the gear-driven mode when the driven rotation is not engaged, making its capability for correction in that setting incredibly low when compared to the 12, 15, or 21mm orbits of our random orbital tools. If you enjoy that tool, great, however "2 in 1" means very little, when 1 of the 2 doesn't have much capability or usefulness. Thanks again for commenting though!
Flex xce is best gear driven polishing machine
Nah, had 1 and it doesn't compare to the Mille