SoftBuff 5,5"

[yoliah]

Hey guys, why Meguiar's not produce SoftBuff in 5,5" format?
I thinks that this pad are the best and in 5,5" would have a great success!
Thanks!

[greg0303]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

Many guys thought that 5.5" pads will be new 2011 products.

It would definitely help owners of first generation DAs to spin pads easier and get more rotation out of their machines.

Well, maybe next year.

In the mid-time Lake Country has them in 5.5" diameter in CCS, flat (thin) and new Hydro Tech version.

[Kevin Brown]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

Here's the answer to your question:

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46309

It SMOKES any and all 5.5" foam pads, including anything Meguiar's could have offered to compete with it.

[DetailFreak517]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

It would definitely help owners of first generation DAs to spin pads easier and get more rotation out of their machines.

For years and years we lived with G100As and 6.5" SoftBuff pads, and managed to get great results. I guess I don't see much reason for Meg's to offer a 5.5" version of their pads when with proper technique the inch larger pads are perfectly fine.

As Kevin posted/linked, the advances in buffing technology are now moving in a totally different direction and I for one am really anxious to become an early adopter!

[yoliah]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

Thanks for response! In effect I thinks that with actual pads we can do an excellent work.
It was more a curiosity than anything else. I see DA Microfiber System and I can not wait to see its!!!

[greg0303]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

[QUOTE=DetailFreak517;445062]For years and years we lived with G100As and 6.5" SoftBuff pads, and managed to get great results. I guess I don't see much reason for Meg's to offer a 5.5" version of their pads when with proper technique the inch larger pads are perfectly fine.

First generation dual action polishers (including Porter Cable 7424, 7336 and Meguiar's G100) have hard time keeping foam buffing pads rotating under pressure as the pads become wet with product.

Wet foam tries to absorb power which is supplied by free floating spindle assemble on DA polisher. In result pad stops rotating and just simply jiggles against the paint. If correction/ polishing work is the goal (not waxing) then pad rotation under pressure is a must.

Pads which are thick and large would be less effectively kept rotated by those machines. Therefore to maximize the rotation 5.5" pads would be more effective. Also thinner pads absorb less energy.

I hope it helps.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

For years and years we lived with G100As and 6.5" SoftBuff pads, and managed to get great results. I guess I don't see much reason for Meg's to offer a 5.5" version of their pads when with proper technique the inch larger pads are perfectly fine.

And that was also before M105 or even Ultimate Compound. Heck, Mike Phillips used to teach our Saturday Detailing 101 Classes using 6.5" pads, a G100 and M80 Speed Glaze. Just look at some of the threads of Saturday class images dating back a few years and look at all the great results that were achieved with that combo.

As for the microfiber pads......

[TH0001]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

First generation dual action polishers (including Porter Cable 7424, 7336 and Meguiar's G100) have hard time keeping foam buffing pads rotating under pressure as the pads become wet with product.

I'm not too sure about this sentence as it makes it seem that the newer models don't suffer from this as well (they do). All Dual-Action polishers have hard time (relative) keeping the pad rotating under pressure because they all rely on physics to make the pad spin.

Also I'm not too sure I would consider the added weight of product to have a significant difference to the rotational speed (unless of course we added a exorbitant amount of weight). Even than once the pad is up to speed the greater weight should produce more momentum which would in term reduce the variations in the pad's RPM.

What I believe is more likely the culprit is that as the pad becomes warmer/more saturated the foam becomes softer and more of the membrane contacts the surface (increase in surface area). Think of a soft, gummy race slick vs. a hockey puck hard street tire. The increase in "traction" will have a more dramatic impact on RPM vs. the amount of added weight.

Also as the foam becomes warmer/softer it creates a self perpetuating problem in that more and more pressure is needed to fully compress the foam and allow the oscillating polishing motion to more completely transfer. As more pressure is applied the foam may become warmer, requiring more pressure, until the pad rotation is then stalled.

Wet foam tries to absorb power which is supplied by free floating spindle assemble on DA polisher.

I would change wet foam to softer/sticker/grippier/etc. The free floating spindle assembly is Porter Cable's term for a bearing that is off set from the drive axle (creating the orbit). The Free Floating Spindle Assembly doesn't really supply power to as much as it coverts rotational movement into an orbital movement. The softer, more pliable foam than absorbs the orbital movement.

In result pad stops rotating and just simply jiggles against the paint. If correction/ polishing work is the goal (not waxing) then pad rotation under pressure is a must.

It really doesn't jiggle; it oscillates against the paint similiar to the wax on/off motion. If the pad is fully compressed and the orbital motion is fully transferred through out the pad's thickness, than pad rotation (while beneficial) isn't necessary.

Pads which are thick and large would be less effectively kept rotated by those machines. Therefore to maximize the rotation 5.5" pads would be more effective. Also thinner pads absorb less energy.

I hope it helps.

Pads that are thick and large are going to me less effectively rotated by any dual-action polisher. While the newer models certainty generate more OPM which does translate into roughly 10-20% more correctional ability on the top end (and the potential to generate a higher rate of spin for the pad) the point of this thread is that it is not necessary to use the latest machines or the smallest sized pads.

A 6.5 inch/7 inch pad with an appropriately large backing plate combined with the latest polishing liquids can do a great job of removing defects from paint

[greg0303]

Re: SoftBuff 5,5"

Mike Phillips explained the whole process of getting maximum ability of first generation dual action polishers really well so here's the link:

http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/how-articles/27166-how-maximize-ability-1st-gen-porter-cable-dual-action-polishers.html

I knew that I read it somewhere.