#1
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2021, 01:06 AM by Whisker_whacker.)
Been using the Razorock SS Lupo for a week now and it’s become my favorite shaver. Curious as to if anyone knows the gap & exposure values? For my face it’s as efficient as a Charcoal Goods lvl 3 but has a smoothness similar to a lvl 2. I’ve tried a lot of razors (Raw RS-10, CG brass & SS all levels, timeless, R41) and for some reason, this Lupo is the top of the heap for me. I think it’s the slim head coupled with the values so I’d like to figure out what other razors out there have similar numbers/dimensions. Thanks!

Vpetrishky, AlanH81, ALI and 2 others like this post
#2
(02-29-2020, 08:40 PM)Whisker_whacker Wrote: Been using the Razorock SS Lupo for a week now and it’s become my favorite shaver. Curious as to if anyone knows the gap & exposure values? For my face it’s as efficient as a Charcoal Goods lvl 3 but has a smoothness similar to a lvl 2. I’ve tried a lot of razors (Raw RS-10, CG brass & SS all levels, timeless, R41) and for some reason, this Lupo is the top of the heap for me. I think it’s the slim head coupled with the values so I’d like to figure out what other razors out there have similar numbers/dimensions. Thanks!

The Lupo is a (modified) copy of the Wolfman WR1 in the standard gap, which is .61mm.

drdeemanda likes this post
#3
Thanks! Any idea if there is a difference in blade exposure?
#4
I don’t know, but I think it’s the same as the Wolfman.
#5
For what it’s worth, I find it considerably less aggressive than my CG lvl 2.

Dave in KY likes this post
#6

Picklemasseuse
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2020, 10:31 PM by drewyoshida.)
I have a Wolfman WR1 .61 and I used to have the Lupo Aluminum and SS. They shave exactly the same as the WR1. It mimics the gap, angle and exposure completely from when I compared them side by side. Of course the lupo head looks different and blade tabs are covered. So yeah the lupo is a shameless knock off but it's nice to be able to have a wolfman shave for $30-$90 lol. Unfortunately none of them work for my skin though and tug and pull ATG.

Whisker_whacker, BPman and AlanH81 like this post
#7
Are you using the aluminum Lupo or stainless? I have the aluminum and have been enjoying it for a milder cleanup pass. Very nice on the face and efficient on the beard.

Nero likes this post
#8
I have the SS DLC coated one. Really glad to hear that it’s measurements are a copy of the wolfman. If my # ever comes up I think I’ll grab a WR1 instead of the WR2. I’ve had a RS-10 which was touted as one of the smoothest shavers our there but found the shave with the Lupo much more enjoyable for my preferences. Guess I’m the odd shaver out and don’t really enjoy super smooth shaves

zaclikestoshave and ALI like this post
#9
Sorry to disagree but the Lupo drags and is not nearly as smooth as RS-10 which is one of the smoothest moderns ever produced (along with 17-4, Timeless & polished Wolfman). The Lupo being a clone of the standard Wolfman 61 is also not even close in efficiency to the CG L2 let alone the CG L3. The Lupo (either Al or SS) may be comparable in efficiency to the CG L1which does not drag - try them both out XTG to feel the difference and get a good comparison.

Nevertheless the Lupo is inexpensive but there are others (ie Karve, Yates) you may want to consider (ie Yates is smooth and more efficient than the Lupo).

Calm_Shaver, ScientificShaves and Shavemd like this post
#10

Picklemasseuse
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2020, 06:07 AM by drewyoshida.)
Agreed the Karve is smoother then the lupo I also find the Gamechanger to be smoother then the lupo. I'm selling my karve in order to get a Tatara Masamune. I might try the lupo again though, the aluminum version and see if I can get it to work with different blades. But yeah sadly for me aswell the thing tugs badly and feels rough. It may be worth going for a higher gap WR1 as some say it gets smoother as it goes up and also more efficient of course. I'm not sure what level though. The lupo is definitely a decently efficient razor though, I'd compare it to the gamechanger .84 in efficiency.

AlanH81, ALI and Dave in KY like this post


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)