Both Abrasives were very sharp at the beginning. “Skin” removal was fast and easy
Trizact 592XA seemed to lose sharpness slightly faster — on the last pieces, we had to spend more time with A160.
When it came to polishing, the situation was the opposite. Agglomerate C41XP felt more aggressive on the first few pieces, so we had to polish slightly longer to achieve the desired finish. On the last pieces, we couldn’t see any real difference.
Both products are still performing well, and I will continue testing their overall lifetime. At this stage, there is no clear winner. Both are high-quality abrasives with their own strengths and small trade-offs.
WHAT’S YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH AGGLOMERATE C41XP AND TRIZACT 592XA?
PART 2
Pushed them harder
This time, we tested STARCKE Agglomerate C41XP P120 against STARCKE Trizact 592XA A160 on a small TIG weld.
Remove the weld.
Flatten the surface.
The surfaces were uneven to make it realistic.Here's results:
Agglomerate C41XP P120 – weld removed and surface smooth in 1 min 20 sec.
Trizact 592XA A160 – 2 min 40 sec… weld still visible.
And we had to stop because the metal overheated and started to burn.
Here is the uncomfortable truth:
TRIZACT is not designed for aggressive weld removal.
TRIZACT performs very well when:
You cannot apply high pressure
You need a controlled scratch pattern
You are preparing the surface for polishing
But when you attack a weld or sharp edge, you need aggression — not finesse. WRONG TOOL = WASTED TIME + HEAT + FRUSTRATION. The real question is not: “Which is better?” The real question is: “Are you using it for the right job?”
From our side: STOP USING TRIZACT FOR WELD REMOVAL
PART 3
During the last two weeks, we spent about 36 hours testing the lifetime of Agglomerate C41XP and Trizact 592XA in real working conditions.
Not all that time was grinding – the parts also needed preparation and polishing – but in total we grinded and polished 68 parts (approx. size 70 × 150 mm). Half were done with Agglomerate C41XP and half with and Trizact 592XA, using the same setup throughout the test. The only grit we changed was P120.
At the beginning, we could feel some difference between them – as we mentioned in the Part 1. However, after a relatively short time, they started to perform almost the same, and it became very difficult to see any real difference.
When comparing hook-and-loop discs for flat surface grinding – with exactly this grit selection – it’s honestly hard to say: “which one is better.”
In our opinion, THE REAL DIFFERENCE OFTEN COMES FROM THE WORKER
How the discs are used, machine speed and power, applied pressure, backing pad hardness, and overall technique all play a big role.
As this test showed once again: SOMETIMES IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE PRODUCT – IT’S ABOUT THE PROCESS.
.png)
.png)
.png)
