Random Orbit Buffer vs. Working By Hand

[techjazz]

OK,

This question has been plaguing me for some time. I own one of the cheap random orbit buffers you can get at Advance Auto Parts for a while, and I've had good results so far.

Usually in the forum, I see everybody recommending working by hand if you cannot get ahold of a DA, but what about working with these random orbit buffers? Can they be as good if not a little better than working by hand?

Also, what about using more aggressive products to counteract the lack of power by using a random orbit buffer?

Thoughts? Ideas? Revelations?

(EDIT): I know that a G110 is better for defect removal. I'm not looking for a "Get a G110" response. I'm looking for an honest comparison between the performance of working by hand to a random orbit buffer.

[Carfire]

Re: Random Orbit Buffer vs. Working By Hand

I am not that sure.
But it helps with your hands a little bit and your arm.
Save your money and buy a DA, or just use your hands!!!

[Murr1525]

Re: Random Orbit Buffer vs. Working By Hand

Well.. can they be better, yeah. But due to the lack of power (which means you cant push down with much force), it more or less just spreads the product. That is fine of course for products that just need spread.

For defect removal though, you need to work the product into/against the paint with some force.

Also, for good results with the old diminishing abrasive products, you needed to break the abrasives down, which again takes some force.

The new micro-abrasives don't need to break down, which could make them more interesting for use with a cheaper polisher. But you will still need some amount of working the product into the paint to remove a defect, not sure if you would get enough of that or not.

The reason to work by hand is that your hand wont "bog down", as you work the product into the paint to remove a defect. For some things, your hand can even beat a proper DA, because of the DA's clutch.

[techjazz]

Re: Random Orbit Buffer vs. Working By Hand

Well.. can they be better, yeah. But due to the lack of power (which means you cant push down with much force), it more or less just spreads the product. That is fine of course for products that just need spread.

For defect removal though, you need to work the product into the paint.

Also, for good results with the old diminishing abrasive products, you needed to break the abrasives down, which again takes some force.

The new micro-abrasives don't need to break down, which could make them more interesting for use with a cheaper polisher. But you will still need some amount of working the product into the paint to remove a defect, not sure if you would get enough of that or not.

The reason to work by hand is that your hand wont "bog down", as you work the product into the paint to remove a defect. For some things, your hand can even beat a proper DA, because of the DA's clutch.

See, now that answer makes a lot more sense to me. I might hit a comparison test when I do a detail in a couple of weeks. (Almost out of Texas!)

What you say about micro-abrasives was the reason why I'm asking this question. If the abrasives are there and you can apply some pressure to the surface, it might just be a more efficient way (and less-tiring!) to use an orbital polisher.

I'm thinking for my comparison between the two is judging off of the amount of time spent with both mediums. If 30 seconds by hand removes more than 30 seconds by random orbit buffer. If the abrasives are always there, it's a matter of how good each method works in the product to the paint.

This might turn out to be an interesting discussion.

[Murr1525]

Re: Random Orbit Buffer vs. Working By Hand

Hard to say whether time, or # of applications, or something else would be the best comparison. Might need to do a few spots, focusing on different variables. Also which product you chose of course.

If you have the time to do it, I am sure those with the cheaper polishes would appreciate it.