Recently, one of our readers wrote to me with a simple question:
“What do you actually know about the KBA Rapida 75? It is produced by a renowned company and sold at a reasonable price.”

Indeed, on these pages we often discuss Heidelberg presses. What about the others? The market might seem dominated by one manufacturer, yet competitors have long fought for a place beside it. During my own years with Heidelberg, we constantly faced the pressure of lower-priced machines from rivals. Time to look back and ask: did those alternatives stand the test of time?

By coincidence, we recently inspected two identical KBA Rapida 75 presses, both built in 2008, with consecutive serial numbers. What we found was revealing.
To say it in advance: these presses proved temperamental. As they aged, a remarkable number of recurring faults appeared. KBA solved many of them—eventually—but only in later models. Judging by the service history of the units we examined, the Rapida 75 has turned out to be a press with a notably high cost of ownership.

Origins of the Rapida 75

The Rapida lineage goes back long before the “Seventy-Five.”

König & Bauer had been showing sheet-fed presses under the Rapida name since the late 1960s, and by the early 1990s had a full format range—from the half-format Rapida SRO 72 (52 × 72 cm) to large-format models.

The late 1980s were a turning point: presses became faster, electronics more reliable, and manufacturers began abandoning the old planetary and tandem configurations in favor of the now-standard unit-type design.

Contrary to popular belief, the so-called planetary configuration—with a common impression cylinder (CIC)—was notinvented by Planeta or KBA.
The name Planeta itself came from the planetary gear train, not from a “planetary” layout of satellite printing units around a central cylinder.

The Rapida 72: A Reliable Workhorse

Around 1990, KBA replaced its outdated planetary SRO with the unit-type Rapida 72. The new model ran faster and far more stably. These sturdy “workhorses” gained a reputation for simplicity and low cost. They came with automatic wash-up devices, optical densitometric control, and a short inking unit.

KBA’s design philosophy favored a compact inking system with only 14 rollers of large diameter—a feature that turned out both a strength and a weakness.
It enabled quick clean-ups and fast ink changes but made it harder to reproduce large solids; operators complained of ghosting. KBA disagreed, and this concept survived into the 2000s.

The Colortronic console offered the standard functions of the early 1990s: lateral and circumferential register, ink keys, and machine diagnostics.
Idle units could be switched off individually. Thanks to double-diameter impression and transfer cylinders, the press could handle substrates up to 0.8 mm thick—making it popular among packaging printers.

Interestingly, the older SRO never completely vanished: in 1995 KBA introduced the Rapida 72 K, a two-color variant based on it, elevated and fitted with a new Mabeg feeder. Marketed as the fastest sheet-fed press in the world, it even entered the Guinness Book of Records for achieving 18,000 iph in the late 1990s.

The Rise of the Rapida 74

The logical successor was the Rapida 74, with a slightly larger sheet size (52 × 74 cm), higher speed (15,000 iph), and richer configuration options—coater, perfecting, and more.
KBA also offered a cost-effective inking system with iris-roller separation, allowing several colors to be charged into one fountain for special jobs such as security printing—where axial oscillation could be disabled.

In the mid-2000s, KBA experimented with waterless offset, launching versions with the Gravuflow short inking unit (covered earlier on PressInspection).
Presses built between 2004 and 2008 still enjoy demand today and often command higher resale prices than some newer generations.

Why Production Moved to the Czech Republic

Compared to Heidelberg’s CP2000-equipped machines, the Rapida 74 lagged technologically, but its true problem was cost.
By the mid-2000s it had become expensive to produce in Germany: high labor and assembly costs forced KBA to seek a cheaper B2-format platform. The company couldn’t price the 74 against Heidelberg—it was simpler in design and aimed at a different buyer.

An internal report I once saw stated that only seven Rapida 74 presses were assembled in 2007 before production stopped. The model’s commercial failure coincided with the bankruptcy of Czech manufacturer Polly in Dobruška—the same town where ADAST had once built presses.

In 2005 KBA purchased the facility, its engineering documentation, and staff, turning it into KBA-Grafitec. All B2 production was moved there.
For a time, KBA even continued producing Polly and Performa models under its own name, gradually modernizing them. Among them were the Rapida 75/75E/75 PRO and the Performa 66/74 for entry-level printers.

The Rapida 75 was therefore a cost-optimized successor to the German 74, blending KBA’s experience with Polly’s simpler construction, focusing on compactness, affordability, and moderate automation.

Launch of the Czech-Built Rapida 75

The Rapida 75 made its public debut at drupa 2008, with installations following in 2009 across Europe and the U.S.

Technically it was familiar: a compact frame, continuous gear drive, “7-o’clock” cylinder geometry, double transfer cylinders, 15,000 iph maximum speed, and formats of 530 × 750 mm (optionally 605 × 750 mm). Configurations ranged from 2 to 8 colors, with optional perfecting and coating.

In 2011 came the Rapida 75 E, a lower-cost version easing entry for small printers, and in 2016 the Rapida 75 PRO, with a larger sheet size, TouchTronic console, faster makereadies, and partial unification with larger Rapida models.

Production began around 2007–2008; the main installation wave ran 2009–2013.
By 2012 KBA reports admitted that “small-format Rapida 75 (KBA-Grafitec production)” had underperformed against sales targets, pressured by tough competition and the shrinking number of B2 printers. The company’s hopes shifted to the more automated Rapida 76, launched in 2013.

Thus, the original 75 was built roughly from 2007/08 to the mid-2010s, yielding its place to the 75 E, 75 PRO, and 76.

Heritage of Polly / Performa

The Czech DNA is obvious: a light, compact, semi-format press optimized for economical runs and quick makereadies.

Many mechanical solutions and service practices were inherited directly from the Dobruška plant—feeders, sheet transport, lubrication layout, even component sourcing.

What the Rapida 76 Improved

Koenig & Bauer highlighted the transfer of features from mid-format machines into B2:
sidelay-free infeed, deeper presetting, higher automation, and more flexible configurations—precisely what the 75 lacked.

Operators often noted the 75’s higher downtime and cost of ownership compared with Heidelberg presses of the same class. While such opinions came mostly from user forums, not factory data, they show how the market perceived the model.

 

So What Was the Rapida 75?

From an analytical standpoint, it was KBA’s last-minute attempt to stay in the B2 segment.

Earlier, the company had targeted advanced users—especially packaging printers—but the Rapida 75 marked a retreat to a simpler, entry-level concept for newcomers.

Strengths

• Very compact footprint and compatibility with CIP3/CIP4 format

• Low declared power consumption

• Rated speed up to 15,000 iph

• Flexible configuration: 2–8 colors, perfecting, coating, and optional US format (605 × 750 mm)

• In the PRO version — faster makeready and modern interface

• Laser-zoned duct blade, reducing uneven wear

  

• Dedicated calibration tool for ink sones included. This very useful tool is necessary if the printing press uses to CIP3 format to receive data from prepress.

  

Weaknesses

• Largely mechanical setup: makeready consumed more time and waste.
  KBA itself admitted in Rapida 75 PRO brochures that only with Autoplate, CleanTronic, and DensiTronic did it manage to cut waste and startup time.

• The feeder design, with rollers and brushes plus two vacuum belts, was already outdated in 2008 and sensitive to paper trimming accuracy.

  

• Plastic parts degraded: torn bellows on feeder shafts, brittle coolant hose connectors (Technotrans) no longer available new.

  

• Ergonomics: no CAN-bus communication, controls scattered—main power and auxiliaries at delivery, inking adjustments at the Colortronic console.

  

• Manual lubrication required at numerous points; forgetting it led to wear, play, and sheet loss inside the press. Strangely enough, this problem was observed on ALL first-generation Rapida 75 printing presses manufactured between 2008 and 2010 that were inspected.

• Limited availability of spare parts: small production run means many sensors or motors must be ordered individually from KBA with long lead times.

• Electronics proved unreliable; registration motors in print units often failed. One dealer of printing equipment even disguised broken ones before our inspection.

• On all 2008 machines inspected, the Baldwin dryer monitor was damaged.

  

• Failures of ductor drive motors were widespread; replacements now cost around €6,000 each and exist only in old stock.

  

• Sheet-loss incidents inside the delivery section occasionally led to fires when unnoticed.

  

Resale Market

On the secondary market, the Rapida 75 has consistently fetched lower prices than the “icons” of its class (Heidelberg SM/XL 74, Komori Lithrone 28/29).
This reflects its positioning as an economical semi-format press from Dobruška—bad news for sellers, but a plus for bargain-hunters.

Conclusions

In essence, the KBA Rapida 75 was a Czech reincarnation of KBA’s half-format strategy—born from Polly/Performa engineering, intended as a low-cost alternative to the expensive German RA 74.

Positioned for entry-level printers, it was simplified both mechanically and electronically. The inherited Czech design inevitably affected longevity: weaknesses appeared after several years of use.

For a beginner’s market the machine was adequate, but like any largely mechanical press, it demanded disciplined maintenance. Many owners neglected lubrication or cannibalized unused units for parts.

As a transitional generation, the 75 fell between eras — its weaknesses were later corrected in the 75 PRO and 76. When choosing a press today, I would rather look at an earlier Rapida 74 or a later Rapida 76.

If you come across a “bargain” Rapida 75, approach it with caution. A well-maintained example can still print beautifully—but it won’t be cheap. Expect prices similar to a Speedmaster SM 74, which, all things equal, remains the safer choice.

Every Rapida 75 on the market deserves a thorough inspection: any failure may cost not only money but weeks of downtime.

By the mid-2010s the model naturally gave way to the 75 E / 75 PRO, and the technological mantle in B2 passed to the Rapida 76—but that, as they say, is another story.

(c) PressInspection — Independent analyses and inspections of printing equipment.