Buy and sell used equipment here - Carpet cleaners, vacuums, scrubber dryers, rotaries, etc.

Wanted Water Fed Pole System
Posted by Central (Central), 19 November 2003
Im looking for a water fed pole system, either trolley or possibly van type.  Interested in the ones that have either 1 or 2 poles coming off, could you please message me and lket me know how much your looking for if you have one for sale.

Posted by bengiles (bengiles), 10 December 2003
hia mate, My name is Ben Giles of Ultima Cleaning ltd, i see you are looking for a pole system, if you are interested i can supply a tank, de-ionizer, 3 bags of resin, 8foot, 18foot, 30foot, 40 foot poles, 60 psi pump, tds monitor, and fittings for between £1000 + vat and £1500 + vat

cal me on 07970 918641 or in the office on 01239 621821
Posted by hynlo (hynlo), 9 January 2004
hi mate
why try and make your own i did and ended up making two others aswell  Wink[flash=200,200][/flash]
Posted by pdhanson (Silly Philly), 9 January 2004
Here are a few reputable suppliers I know of:
This is Peter Fogwill's site, he's very helpful.  I doubt you'd find a better trolley system than the one here, as it includes an RO unit.  Also the trailer system looks good.
Ionic, formerly OTT is a large, well established company.  Good quality kit, but rather expensive.
Pure20, a small company owned by Ionic.  They promise to beat any price.  As its backed by Ionic, the kit is probably very good.  However, is this Ionic's attempt to force the smaller companies out of business?  Decide for yourself.
Brodex.  Run by a lively character who is apparently a dominatrix in his spare time.  Be sure to ask after his best friend Reuban Reynolds of Ionic. Kit looks good, though the website does not show prices.
A water treatment company that has branched out to supply window cleaning stuff as well.  Quite good, though a little pricey and no full systems.
Cleantech offer a trolley system similar to Peter Fogwills, but notice it has no RO unit.  This will make the resin wear out quickly.

Hope this helps

Posted by Squeaky_Clean (Squeaky_Clean), 9 January 2004
Nice one Silly Wink
I think all these makers of pure waterfed pole systems are now getting a bit worried, they have all made  money thats now starting to dry up as more and more window cleaners realize that you can build you own.  Just made mine to fit escort van very smart job if I dont say so myself.
Posted by denzle (Denzle), 9 January 2004
Got any pictures of your handy work ?
Posted by STEVE71163 (Steve Lowe), 9 January 2004
Hi Squeaky,
               What size tank did you get in your Escort van Huh

Posted by shinebright (shinebright), 10 January 2004
Hynlo/ Squeaky and other self builders, can you advise me on the following:

Where is the best place to by the RO kit?

Where do you buy your pumps?

I have sourced the rest of my requirements.

Posted by shinnyshinner (shinnyshinner), 10 January 2004
Hi sunbright
I'd have a go at contacting Peter f at          
Nice chap easy to talk to and wont give you any dud advise to get a sale (straight talking).

Posted by Squeaky_Clean (Squeaky_Clean), 10 January 2004
I put in just under a 300Lt tank, its about 2' by 2' by 4.5' , just fits in behind steel divider thats behind the seats.  Got the poles from Ott bit pricey Shocked but nice poles.
I'll let you know about pics as soon as I can sort that out.  I think there must be a market for a DIY kit everything you need inc installation instructions in one pack, it would just save all the time and effort  to source it all.  let me know if you would be interested.
I bet I'll get it in the neck  Lips Sealed from all the pole system manufacturer's now.
Posted by Squeaky_Clean (Squeaky_Clean), 11 January 2004
Sorry shinebright forgot to answer your questions


they say thats a special one for the job Huh
although you can get a similar one from
can't see it on their website though.
hope thats some help.

Squeaky Paul
Posted by shinebright (shinebright), 11 January 2004
I have spoken to Peter and June regarding their systems and components.

Peters RO kit is substantially cheaper than Junes, I would be interested to know why Squeaky bought the more expensive system.

Both are very helpful and give straightforward advice. Peter has the knowledge of the application of the system where June convinced me on the principle of the method with her knowledge aquired in the water treatment industry.

I would rather pay £450 than £600, so I am likely to buy off Peter. I just wondered if there were any cheaper systems and also is Peters system up to the task bearing in mind how much OTT etc charge.

Which pump did you purchase from Williamsons? There are hundreds of 12v pumps on their price list.

I am looking at 1000 litre system, producing the water at home and carrying to site so that I don't have to trouble the customer for a water supply. I have just bought a Renault Trafic for this purpose and want to get my system up and running as soon as possible.
Posted by peterf (peterf), 13 January 2004
on 01/10/04 at 23:54:24, Squeaky_Clean wrote:
I think there must be a market for a DIY kit everything you need inc installation instructions in one pack, it would just save all the time and effort  to source it all.  let me know if you would be interested.
I bet I'll get it in the neck  Lips Sealed from all the pole system manufacturer's now.

I do a DIY kit with everything you need, see,

People making up their own systems may or may not save money buying the parts straight from the manufacturers, of the individual equipment.  I know sometimes you have trouble buying single things; they want you to buy quite a bit at a time.  The other thing is if they do they will charge you quite a bit more for a one off.

The other problem is the time it takes to get all the parts working with one another; I spent a lot of time, and wasted a lot of money trying out things that just didn't work.

I dont think pole manufacturers will be too bothered about you making systems up yourself, if you have time to spare and not bad at DIY then you can save some money, but all the parts have to be bought from somewhere.  I personally don't have any problem quoting for individual items, and recommending what is best to use with what parts, and advising how to adapt parts to make them fit with other parts.

If you would like a quote on anything, or just want some advice, give me a call or email, details can be found at the site address below.

Peter Fogwill

Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 15 January 2004
Hi Shinebright,

Hope you manage to get your system up and running soon. I notice you've bought a traffic. They are excellent vans. However, have you checked the payload. I wanted a 1000 litre system in a traffic as well but I had to get a Master 3.5 tonner as 600-700 litres is the maximum payload for a traffic, even the long-wheelbase version. Shame, as the traffic is a much nicer looking and driving van  Cry

Posted by shinebright (shinebright), 15 January 2004

My Trafic is suitable for the task.

1 litre of water weighs 1kg. 1000l is 1 tonne.

Trafic will carry 1.5 tonne.

Master will carry 2.5 tonne.

Who told you the capacity is 600/700?

Escort vans could handle a 500/600 litre tank.

Thanks for the warning, it is a serious issue.
Posted by licencedtoclean (licencedtoclean), 15 January 2004
thermopure reach and wash system available  -  truck mounted in Renault Master Van LWB High Roof.  1000 Litre Thermo-Pure System  -  4 Ports - 2 hot - 2 cold.  Top 45ft Ultra Lite Carbon Fibre Pole, 20ft Carbon Fibre Pole, 12ft Waterfed Pole.  Van and System only 3 months old, 800 miles on clock to date (15/1/04) geniune reason for sale.
For more information contact Rab at Licenced to Clean
01856771570 or e mail

Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 16 January 2004
Hi Shinebright,

Got my facts from Ionic/OTT. They refused to fit their 1000 litre thermopure system in the trafic. Sad

Looked up the spec on the vans in the Renault manuals from the dealer. It says the trafic payload is 1200kg. I suppose if you're only carrying a tank and one or two light poles you would be fine.

The Master payload is 1700 Kg's for the Medium size. Maybe Ionic's system is heavier. 1000kg's for the water alone then add tank, pumps, fixings, poles,racks, 100m hoses (part full of water), heater unit etc. Plus any regular window cleaning gear, access ladders etc. It could add up I suppose.

The next size down in reach and wash is 650 litres. like you, I didn't want to trouble the customers for water so i wanted the 1000 litre tank. I've noticed a few companies that sell custom tanks though. 900 litres, 800 litres etc. Maybe you could build your own system.

Might save quite a bit of cash as well  Smiley

Posted by sham33 (sham33), 16 January 2004
Hi. Which companys are selling the custom tanks? I'm thinking of building a system soon to fit a smaller van.
Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 16 January 2004
Try Also claim to supply custom tanks. sell the 650 and 1000 litre tanks.

Hope this helps.

Posted by sham33 (sham33), 17 January 2004
Oh yeah, nice one  Smiley I like the look of the 640 litre IBC tank from andwat. Might order that within the week, slowly start getting this off the ground.

Im a bit of a n00b at WFP cleaning. What are
Internal baffles  Huh

Posted by denzle (Denzle), 17 January 2004
Baffles are plates inside the tank to prevent the water sloshing around inside. Imagine a half full tank of water under heavy breaking or in an accident.... 1000lts of water inside a tank joining me in the front seat does not sound like fun.
Posted by sham33 (sham33), 17 January 2004
ok thx, guess they would be worth adding then  Wink
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 18 January 2004
This will be the best advice you see on this forum
If you purchase a tank that is not crash tested due to financial reasons or preference, please fit into a trailer not a van as you could potentionally pay the highest price in a road traffic accident you could lose your life.
There is going to be sombody hurt or killed by a water tank breaking loose have a look at our crash test footage on click on safety and play comparitive test dont let it be you!!!!


Posted by Pure_2o (Pure_2o), 18 January 2004
Want a crash tested tank and chassis and on a budget contact Shocked
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 18 January 2004
This could be better advice, dont believe everything you see on film, it could be misleading.....!
Example; on the OTT website. you see an OTT 1000L machine being crash tested. Why is it only ~70% full of water? some 300Kg (one third of a tonne) lighter than it should have been for a bona fide crash test.
Why is that?
May I confirm on behalf of the major manufacturers that they all use FMVSS compliant fixings for their tank set ups. If you are going to do your own installation, ensure frames are corrosion resistant, as are mountings and as always, a bulkhead is a friend for life..!  
Posted by dirkstar (dirkstar), 18 January 2004
all this crash testing thing people have been carrying loads in vans for many a year if water  is to be crash tested,how come companys who load bricks onto transits etc are not crash testing their carrying systems{pallets}
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

When a pallet of bricks is loaded onto a van it is the drivers responsibility to ensure that it is secured properly. If the load became detached and killed someone the driver could end up with a 10yr prison sentence.

When you go to an installer of vehicle mounted equipment, it is still primarily the drivers responsibility to ensure that the load is secured properly. If you come to our company we can provide independent proof and Thatcham certification to demonstrate that what we have fitted allows you to comply with the Road Traffic Act. Of course you would expect a professional company to be able to provide evidence of testing, after all they make a living from selling equipment and they have legal if not moral responsibility toward their customers.


I thought that you could'nt discuss crash testing! Actually there is no reason why you cannot discuss the issue but it would be better if you did so with the benefit of knowledge. Back in April at the 2003 NFMWGC trade show Craig Mawlam agreed with Brian Dolby to make a full presentation to the Fed committee and all other manufacturers to explain about the Thatcham Crash Testing in detail. To date no such meeting has taken place because certain manufacturers did not wish to attend. Our willingness to share information comes from a desire to protect the window cleaner, the hope being that other suppliers would take the issue seriously enough to undertake testing to obtain certification for their own equipment. We can only speculate that the reason that others have not undetaken testing is because they place profit before safety.

It is wrong for you to claim that your fixings are FMVSS-208 complient because you have no certificate to prove this. Nor can you claim that a bulkhead will protect against an impact equal to 52,000 kg force because you can not prove it,

Every year 3-5 window cleaners loose their lives due to falls from ladders. If a water tank let go in a 3.5T van 3 window cleaners could loose their lives in one go. Due to the proliferation of this method of working we forecast that it will not be long before the number of window cleaners killed by water tanks becomes equal to the number loosing life by ladder, the very thing that waterfed poles were designed to overcome!

We have chosened a path that ensures safety for our customers, a path that provides documented evidence to those who may require it.

Window cleaners,
Consider how much life cover you think that your loved ones will need in the event of your death, now compare that to the money that you may save by buying untested equipment. Are you really saying that your lives are worth so little?

Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
I asked why your machine was only 70% full when crash tested.?
I confirm no other manufacturers were invited to your presentation, unless you can tell me otherwise?
I confirm that pole systems have not been responsible for the death of 1 window cleaner due to RTA in the UK.
I confirm that the majority of the rest of the industry, who now collectively sell more machines than your company, install machines in accordance with FMVSS guidance, no problems.
By attempting to scare people into buying your machines with words like death, grieving loved ones etc etc,  I personally think can only reflect badly upon your company.
There is no evidence to back up your claims, except an image of a competitors machine crushing a dummy  
on video tape. I can confirm that the competitor did not install their own machine to your van as you suggest.
Keepin it real,
Posted by APS_PureWash_Sys (APS_PureWash_Sys), 19 January 2004
What size bolts do you use to secure your systems?
What size reinforcement plates do you use?

I await your reply

Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 19 January 2004
Hi Dom,

One death is one too many. Whether you agree or not, the majority of window cleaners are very concerned with surviving a crash. Aslo as an employer, I am concerned with the safety of my staff. One uninsured claim for negligence would bankrupt me.

Instead of trying to be-little Rueban and his company, (or any other WFP system supplier), why not try being CONSTRUCTIVE. Perhaps letting the public know about what safety initiatives your company are pursuing.

This will give the readers of this forum something to respect and show that you care for THEM and not just about sales promotion and limiting damage to your company's profile.

Whether you like it or not, safety is the no 1 issue with professional window cleaners. Anything you can do to convince people of the safety of your system, even if that means some kind of pratical demonstration will benefit you and your company.

Perhaps we window cleaners shoudn't be influenced by the videos on Ionics website, but we WILL. And don't you know it DOM. Regrettably, I think BRODEX will also have to crash test to restore public faith in their products. It would be expensive but WORTH IT!

But, coming on here and continually trying to minimise, belittle and devalue what Ionic have done will only convince people that they've got you on the run.

Your systems seem well priced, they look durable and I'm sure they do a great job. I'm sure also that you have looked at the safety and have made any necessary adjustments to your installation procedures.

I'm sure that, focusing your time and energy on promoting these positive aspects, will do more endear people to you and your company which, I'm sure is your ultimate objective.

Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

The agreement was made with Bryan Dolby (Federation Chairman) to make a full presentation. Bryan told us that having been invited to attend a presentation at Sumerfield House that companies such as yours had declined to attend and so the meeting has not yet taken place. If you say that you where not invited then that would be a matter for Bryan Dolby to comment on.

Concerning evidence, we have very clear evidence regarding the whole transaction. The competitor (who we shall not name) did as we can prove install the tank into the van as tested. If the competitor in question had been wronged then one would expect them to make a legal challenge. To date this has not been the case, and therefore this would rightly lead anyone to believe that this was because they did not have a leg to stand on.

Companies cannot claim to meet any aspect of the FMVSS standard unless they hold a certificate to prove it. Our certificates are available for anyone to see, and use to obtain comprehensive insurance cover. What we can not understand is why the competitor in question has not yet undertaken crash testing for the benefit of its customers. Perhaps you can comment on that.


Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Steve, Reuben,
Gentlemen, you've both missed the point.
Ask any test engineer, the one machine OTT did test (as the rest of their range remain untested.) was not subject to crash test conditions ie. full of water.
If you dont understand this point, ie. "verifiable repeat testing procedures", the rest below may well be lost on you.
If OTT were to say, our machine passed a 70% full crash test at 50kph, I would,nt even bother writting this and then people could make up their own minds as to why OTT do not publicise the fact.
Specifically to Steve, now that you realise the crash testing is flawed, any comments.
BRODEX believe our money is best spent in developing auixillary restraint systems as fitted as standard on machines we supply to National companies, which comply with and then exceed FMVSS standards.
Our quest for safety has integrity and is verifiable. I now request a copy of all the test data as audited by Thatcham; except their isnt any, because it was never done.
 My company will be publishing its own findings on crash testing, safety issues and the way forward for the industry.
Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 19 January 2004
Flawed testing is better than no testing DOM. That is the way most potential clients will view things.

Most of the time, my system will be filled 70% or less anyway.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you feel agrieved, why not carry out your own testing and show them all up? Or, if you feel you have a case for misrepresentation, take them to court.

But, you can say all you like on here, and it won't get you anywhere.

Fact is Ionics testing could well be flawed. But my business clients, mainly oil related firms, are crazy about safety. They will LOVE the crash testing. They don't want our drivers to be injured in their carparks or access roads so my chances of getting the contract are greatly enhanced. If your system had been tested in this way they would love your system too. That's how shallow the whole thing is. But the customer is always right. Understand that, and you understand what sales is all about. Perception is everything DOM.

Sadly for you, these customers don't read this forum. They do like to see bits of paper though. You need to get some bits of paper for yourself DOM. Then more people will buy systems from you and YOUR business will be enhanced.

I'm sure you will appreciate hearing how these things are perceived in industry.
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

"BRODEX believe our money is best spent in developing auixillary restraint systems as fitted as standard on machines we supply to National companies, which comply with and then exceed FMVSS standards".

How can you say that your system complies with or exceeds FMVSS standards when you have not tested it against the standard. Further how can you demonstrate that your restraint system is anchored any better than the tank, in fact if the tank was anchorged properly then it wouldn't need a restraint system or bulkhead. In fact what you are saying is that you have no confidence in how your tank is secured so you have to fit a restraint system because you expect the tank mountings to fail in a crash.

"I now request a copy of all the test data as audited by Thatcham; except their isnt any, because it was never done".

Sean, if you wish to learn more about the data then inform Bryan Dolby that you are now ready to attend the meeting agreed in April last year. No matter what you say we have a Crash Test Certificate issued by THATCHAM, and I do not believe that any reader will accept your word over theirs.

All that any supplier needs to do is submit their equipment for testing in order to substantiate their claims. There is nothing holding you back.


Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
sorry, "flawed testing" is not better than "no testing" as you state, for one basic reason.
When you fabricate or  misrepresent tests, there usually is a reason for this and when people know the facts, they become suspicious and devalue the whole regime as commercial propaganda.
 My brother has worked for Shell UK for some 20 years in oil exploration (Hydrographic survey) ,and is currently their safety co-ordinator for a large offshore project in the middle East, so I do understand a certain amount about safety in the oil industry.! My brother in law is a safety instructor for RGIT (off shore safety & Survival), hopefully enough said.(not to mention my 2 decades in the chemical industry.!)
 These industries do not respect "bits of paper", only the facts. The OTT range has not to date been crash tested. The one machine filmed being crash tested was not even full.
With respect, I dont think Shell etc. would be impressed with OTT's "Bit of paper"
Roll with it...
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

Thatcham undertook six tests for our company, none were flawed, all were real. We went to Thatcham because of their reputation, a reputation that is acknowledged worldwide. If you want to know more ask Bryan Dolby to arrange the meeting.


Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
If OTT agree to supply BRODEX with full details of the crash test programme, BRODEX will undertake to pay an independent public engineering body to test the veracity of the (perceived) crash test programme and comparative test.
This is a transparent offer and if OTT are confident that they are not taking Thatchams name in vain, they will stand by their data and open it to independant scrutiny.
I think this is fair and equitable to all sides concerned
and would serve any interested readers well. OTT's response will also be judged accordingly.

  "publish and be damned.!"

Duke of Wellington  1769-1852
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

We have considered your proposal and confirm that we agree in principle. Other than Thatcham, there are three independent bodies qualified to carry out such an investigation, the first being TRL, who are government sponsored. In the event that you choose any of the last three they would probably use the services of one of the first three. We shall agree to submit the Thatcham data and other evidence directly to one of the following agencies upon their request;

1)      Transport Research Laboratories – TRL
2)      Millbrook
3)      MIRA
4)      Trading Standards
5)      Vehicle Standards & Engineering – VSE DofT
6)      National Engineering Laboratory

Our agreement in this matter is subject to your consent to publish the final report in C&M, CHT, Cleaning Matters, Window Talk, Cleanitup, and on your website. Further we require your written confirmation of your consent for this course of action and to publication of the results. Following this we await instructions from one of the above.



Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
The truth sets no preconditions. We again request a copy of the Thatcham findings, if indeed there are any, and BRODEX will submit it to 3rd party, government sponsored, engineering bodies, maybe more than one.!
 Pre-conditions to the truth being made available merely are a reluctance to disclosure.
 OTT,s "commercial arrangement" (quote Mr. A.Millar head of crash-thatcham) with Thatcham could never be described as "independent"
example; which magazine are not paid by manufacturers to test their goods-no body would believe the results.!
So when OTT go to Thatcham and commision, then pay for and have control over proceedings, why would anyone assume this is independent crash testing and why on earth would anyone believe the results.?

"Publish and be damned"

Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 19 January 2004
Hi Dom,

Your relatives must know a bit about business to get where they have in the oil industry. But with respect, they don't seem to know a thing about getting window cleaning contracts.

People in the oil DO like to see paperwork. They are genuinely impressed when you can produce documents to back up what you are saying. Thatcham are a recognised body. They conduct testing under strict regulations. They also tested a competitor's system. THEY were satisfied that the test was a fair comparison. Most people will trust Thatcham. Most of my customers will be glad that I use the system that is perceived to be SAFER.

The competitors system failed the test under Thatcham's criteria. This does not prove categorically that Ionic's system is safe. It does prove that it is SAFER. Safer than the competitor's system.

This is how it will be interpreted by others, regardless of what you perceive to be the facts.

Anyway, all you are doing by keeping this going Dom is drawing people's attention to the issue. Most people including myself didn't give it a high priority until you started making such a fuss. The more people hear about it, the more they will look at the video, the more they will see that shiny box crash through the cab. It does not look good. People will believe what they see.

I hope you manage to get the data tested however, as I would love to have additional confirmation.

This is all great publicity for Ionic. Reuban Reynolds must be a laughing up his sleeve!

One day the majority of window cleaners will be using WFP systems. There are thousands of them out there. If you want a bigger slice of that, you will have to crash test... ...and so will everyone else.

I'm not looking for a fight dom. I'm just informing you of how all this appears to the guy in the street. You seem to take your business seriously. If you know the value of information, you will think about what I have said and take it on-board. If you dismiss these views it will be at your own expense.

Catch up with you on another topic  Wink

Posted by shinnyshinner (shinnyshinner), 19 January 2004
I have been popping back to this debate every 15min, I and not surprised there is no agreement to these terms Reuben.
Until now I was starting to take Dom Seriously for a change.
Will be very interesting to see the reply, if anyHuh

Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

The only condition was that you consent to the report being published, in your words publish or be damned.

So, you name the "independent" body and so long as they are qualified we will submit the data directly to them. Basically there are only three other than Thatcham so you pick, TRL, MIRA or Millbrook.

How about Trading Standards?


Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Hi Steve,
sorry mate, you've lost me. You say bent crash testing is better than no crash testing.? Dont follow your logic;
To use an analogy, "a lie is better than no words"
 Crash testing is an industry issue, not a company issue but thanks for the advice.!
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Cant Publish?
wont Publish?

Most people who are actually interested like to make up their own minds, what have OTT got to lose?
What a tangled web....!
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

First you have to prove that lies have in fact been told, and you now have an opportunity for this. But when the truth does come out we'd like to see it published.

In the meantime you are asking people to take your word above that of Thatcham's.


Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Why was your tank not full for the crash test?
cant answer?
wont answer?
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

Nothing to loose, its win win form our perspective. You called our bluff and now you have to pay an "independent public body" to see our hand.


Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 19 January 2004
To quote someone else wiser than us: "Where there is no wood, the fire goes out"  Wink
Posted by jonesy5 (jonesy5), 19 January 2004
At the end of the day ionic have spent a lot of money on crash testing, even if the tank was only 70% full then we all know if we fill our tanks more than 70% we are taking more of a risk.
But how can we accept a system without crash testing, we wouldnt buy a car if the company hadnt made safety paramount, so it is advisable to but a crash tested system.  This form of window cleaning is the future invest now Dom and maybe become the BMW of wash systems.
If you want the Rolls Royce version go to ionic.

Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
If you want the rolls royce of systems buy a HIGHFLOW 1000 stainless steel industrial machine, the only industrial machine available in the U.K.
Posted by shinnyshinner (shinnyshinner), 19 January 2004
Yea but problem is it has not been crash tested.
so more like a robin reliant
Posted by shinnyshinner (shinnyshinner), 19 January 2004
Nice one polepro
think he has made a rod for his own back
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Mention OTT, same old cronies trot out and so at this point, the thread starts to get really boring.
OTT wont publish their crash test for public scrutiny, make of that what you will.
We know the truth and know how to spend our money wisely on safety issues. For the people who think the OTT crash test holywood cartoon proves anything, I feel sorry for them, I really do.
On a lighter note, I think my time on this particular thread is over as I know what happens next and it smells too much for me (& boring...!)
Posted by shinnyshinner (shinnyshinner), 19 January 2004
One thing Dom is you are very funny
Keep it up
Posted by dirkstar (dirkstar), 19 January 2004
everyone backing crash testing {are your systems all crash tested} and ionic systems i guess? had a demo with tucker their system is the onlyone that could be removed from the vehicle{fastened in with straps}300 ltr system .they reckoned totally safe.
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 19 January 2004

Looks like I may get the last word for a change (but I doubt it).

Our testing has been made public, on our website, at trade shows, in editorial and in advertising. We have made it public and because the supplier in question has made no legal challenge it is reasonable for others to assume that that is because the results are beyond question.

We offered to make a presentation to you and others at Sumerfield House, Brodex refused to attend. A few posts ago you said that your company would pay to have the data investigated by an independent body, but it would appear that you may have backed down from that position.

We have no problem making the data available to the consumer, and if anyone wants to see it for themselves they are welcome to come to our premises and we will happily show them.

Please, put up or shut up.



Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Slowly slowly catchy monkey..!
Your input is as always greatly appreciated.

PS the offer will remain open, publish your flawed data and we will pay for independent engineers to expose it for what it is, Holywood...the Matrix special effects were a lot better though..! Better still post it here and save the people a drive down to wiltshire, let the people decide.....
Posted by pure_genius (pure_genius), 19 January 2004

I am suprised that you say you are an educated man that you allow Ionic to show the crash test footage of your system failing a crash test, if that was my company i would have legally challenged what they have done and then demonstrated to the consumer that my system was safe with undertaking of crash testing.

Your fueling there fire and letting them walk all over you. I am sure your system is a good one but i would not have it fitted in a van maybe a trailer.

Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Oh no, the parrots we go again...!
Posted by pure_genius (pure_genius), 19 January 2004

i was only trying to be constructive  Huh
do you speak to all your prospects like this?

Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 19 January 2004
Unsolicited advice a speciality? If you were a genuine prospect, you'd probably have contacted me off forum to arrange a factory visit and see for your self what makes BRODEX the U.K's No.1 for value and service.
Sorry Pure Genius, you're just not "Real enough".
Posted by pdhanson (Silly Philly), 20 January 2004
Sorry to but in here, but isnt the whole point of crash testing to 'develop' a safe system?

If one system fails, surely that doesnt mean it needs to be ignored.  

I'm sure that ionic, or any other company, would never have made a song and dance about a test that showed its system failing, but only when problems had been ironed out and a successful test completed would it publish the results.

No doubt this would take a considerable time, and other companies will eventually go through the same process.

Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 20 January 2004

You're right, the whole point of crash testing is to make window cleaning safer. When we first released news of the crash testing we invited other responsible manufacturers to follow suit. We agreed with Bryan Dolby to make a presentation at the NFMWGC headquarters, all pole suppliers were invited. That was in April 2003, to date no such meeting has taken place, because certain competitors declined to attend.

Every year 3-5 window cleaners are killed in ladder accidents, in separate incidents. The potential exists for 3 window cleaners to be killed in a single road traffic accident by the water tank fitted in their van, a fact that has been proven. Clearly the use of waterfed pole systems is set to grow, it is not difficult therefore to foresee a time when two or more incidents involving water tanks lead to greater loss of life than ladders currently do. Remember that waterfed poles are meant to be safer than ladders.

We really would like to see other suppliers offering certificated crash tested equipment in order to ensure that the waterfed pole industry maintains a 100% safety record.

The argument about whether the testing was flawed can easily be won by Ionic, but what is really at issue here is, why our competitors are so reluctant to submit their own equipment for testing. If the shoe had been on the other foot Ionic would have carried out testing by now and held a certificate in order to prove the safety of its equipment. If these companies are indeed selling more systems than Ionic as Dom suggests then its not that they can't afford it. So it would be reasonable to assume that reasons for not testing may be;

1) They place profit above safety.
2) They do not believe that their equipment would pass.

We have not and shall not name the competitor who's system was used in the comparative test, and therefore cannot publish all of the data without the written consent of the competitor in question. In the event that such consent is forthcomming we will be happy to provide all of the data directly to a suitably qualified third party.

We think that we have said all that needs to be said on the subject of crash testing and will not bring up the subject on this forum again. However, we will defend ourselves when necessary and will answer posts or topics when advise is sought. This was the case when I offered advise to fit DIY systems into trailers rather than vans.


Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 20 January 2004
Too busy for this nonsense, cant publish, scared to publish.
my final word on the issue.

Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 20 January 2004

Won't attend NFMWGC crash meeting... Scared to attend.
Won't appoint a third party... Scared to appoint a third party.
Won't go to court.... Scared to go to court.
Won't undertake crash testing... Scared to undertake crash testing.
Won't give consent to publish... Scared to publish!

Scared to publish? not us.


Posted by Majestic (Majestic), 20 January 2004
Won'-t hear the last of this
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 20 January 2004
To use Reubens words,

"put up (publish) or shut up.!"


Posted by Old_Master (Old_Master), 27 January 2004
I wasnt going to get involved in this slanging match.

But I have just one question. Why has the top half of your crash test dummy clearly been digitally removed. Is it because it went through the windscreen?

Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 27 January 2004
Old Master,

If you look at the video on the safety page our website you can see the dummy in shot the whole time, the view from the overhead camera shows that the windscreen remains intact.

When you visited our trade stand at the NEC you saw the van on display complete with windscreen. In fact we still have the van with windscreen intact. Clearly we could not post the whole of the video on the website because it would take too long to download it to play, its edited but not digitally enhanced that would be wrong.


Posted by Mike_Boxall (Mike_Boxall), 27 January 2004
Just to let you know that I am meeting Craig Mawlam tommorrow in Lyneham to see the crash test 'data' that so many recent topics have covered. Like many others here I am getting tired of reading the same accusations time and again. Ionic says the system that failed the crash test was fitted by 'the competitor' and it has video evidence to prove it, while Brodex insists the machine in question was not - one of them is blatantly lying and I'm interested to know if this video actually exists and what's on it. Brodex also question the test proceedure used by Thatcham and claim that they will produce any results for a fee. Recently, Omnipole have joined the debate (again another one who has chosen to do it anonymously) and have suggested that the test video has been digitally modified.

There are also a number of other issues that have been discussed but have been inconclusive because one or other has witheld information and it will be interesting to see what information Ionic are prepared to share.

Ironically, pure water window cleaning is becoming more and more popular, in part at least, because it is considered safer than working with ladders. Crash testing is a serious issue and it's unfortunate that it's going to take the death of a window cleaner from a poorly fitted system before more manufacturers become proactive about safety and work together to make ALL systems safer.

I'll let you know on Thursday once I've discovered why they won't publish 'the data' (if indeed it actually exists!)



This page is a thread posted to the cleanitup forum at and archived here for reference. To jump to the archive index please follow this link.