[john martin]

Cleansmarts test was unfair. On the Ashbys test, it clearly shows the vac motor buttons been turned on, this was on both machines.

If you watch the Cleansmart test. The Airflex had all three motors turned on. He only turned on one motor on the Enforcer and did not angle the camera to show all buttons illuminated on the Enforcer.

Listen through headphones ... at 1.26     
 
First motor ...second later second motor almost causes the funnel to fall off the top of the Enforcer .
Plus ...   It shows the lift test at 17HG  for the Enforcer , one motor would be half or less than half that  , it then goes to the CFM gauge in the same shot without turning off the machine . 

[Ferenc G.]

Cleansmarts test was unfair. On the Ashbys test, it clearly shows the vac motor buttons been turned on, this was on both machines.

If you watch the Cleansmart test. The Airflex had all three motors turned on. He only turned on one motor on the Enforcer and did not angle the camera to show all buttons illuminated on the Enforcer.

Just watched the vid, as John said you can hear it when he switches the second vac on.

[james roffey]

To claim that Mat and cleansmart would cheat by just running one vac on the Enforcer in a head to head test is quite frankly ridiculous.
As John Martin says the results match the statistical performance  of what the vac motors would be expected to produce.

[Carpet Dawg]

Hw could you not hear the second vac going on? 

[*Hector*]

Hw could you not hear the second vac going on? 

No sound card in the pc 

[Ferenc G.]

I would like to see the Storm tested  , i'd say 280cfm and 9HG   ....
less than the Turbo   

  I would like to see that too!

[jim mca]

The guys who have upgraded from the turbo to the storm that have posted have said performance did improve
as for the enforcer I have a machine ( airflex mini ) with the same configuration as the enforcer imo its the best
PORTABLE out there but its a toy compared with my jag which in imo is not very portable.

[Ferenc G.]

According to the specs of the vac's (and the cleansmart test) the Turbo produces approx. 300 CFM. Two 6.6 motors are around 280CFM, waterlift is almost identical.

[Doug Holloway]

Hi Guys

Just goes to show you can't win whatever you do.

Better to listen to those who you trust and you know are speaking from first hand knowledge.

On a seperate note it always makes me laugh when a manufacturer claims greater lift than the total lift of the motors, just made up nonsense.

Cheers

Doug

[Carpet Dawg]

Hw could you not hear the second vac going on?  

No sound card in the pc  

  either that or he had to run away from the police when the 2nd vac came on.... see if you can work that one out

[Carpet Dawg]

Hi Guys

Just goes to show you can't win whatever you do.

Better to listen to those who you trust and you know are speaking from first hand knowledge.

On a seperate note it always makes me laugh when a manufacturer claims greater lift than the total lift of the motors, just made up nonsense.

Cheers

Doug

What not even "Ultra-Tech Wind Tunnel Vacuum Motors" Doug ?? 

[john martin]

Excellent vacuum motor humor  ^   



Breaking news ....

Derek Ashby rejects Cleansmart Video and stands by his figures  ...




From youtube ...
Just lost a customer - cant believe you would turn to such dirty tactics with staged results. I believe you should apologise unreservedly. Dusthers Commercial, Kettering.

carpetcleanerNN155SB 4 days ago

Hi carpetcleanerNN155SB

Thank you for taking time to comment. We value the opinions of all our customers and I’m sorry that you feel this way, however we unreservedly stand by our comparative results. I am more than happy to explain our methods of testing to you in detail and talk through why we feel our results are accurate, so please give me a call at your convenience on 01795 436999. I’m in the office Mon – Fri, 08:00 – 16:30.

Derek Ashby

[john martin]

Actually , just spotted Ashbys full reply here ...





Published on Sep 21, 2012 by AshbysUK

Thank you BucklandSteamClean for bringing the Cleansmart video to our attention. We have posted the link below -
http://youtu.be/ZXn5gL3AaBs
as it is only fair people see both to understand the difficulties faced in the accurate testing and comparing of vacuum systems.

Ashbys have over 35 years experience in the professional carpet cleaning industry. We know our customers work hard and we want to support them by offering the best machine. To ensure our customers get the best, it is important that they can make an informed decision when buying a machine - and to do this, they need to know a machine's specification.

When we test a machines vacuum system it is not in laboratory conditions, but we try to do so in a fair, monitored and controlled environment using a standard model and test equipment which provides a consistent result. This can be difficult when measuring CFM.

Having used in the past both vane and hot-wire anemometers, the Omega gauge used in our video produces consistent results which can act as a fair comparison between machines. Hand held devices need to be fixed in position, in a known cubic area to calculate CFM accurately. If not fixed in position you achieve varying results. A good example of this shown in Cleansmart's video (see time 2.54 - 3.07), where the vane anemometer shows readings which appear to vary between 400 - 300 CFM prior to being positioned in the test area of their Airflex Turbo.

We believe our testing methods are sound and stand by our comparative results. We believe our vacuum system PC9951 is the best in its class and if it were not, we would willingly install a different system.

In our video the Enforcer tested was brand new. The Cleansmart Airflex Turbo was not brand new, but was in good working order, had the dump valve fully closed and we have no reason to believe it did not perform to its normal working specification.

It did not however, have the grey plastic / metal device shown at the back of the clear recovery / dirty water tank lid (see Cleansmart's video time 1.14), which during the airflow test could act as a clamp if the lid was being pushed down (see time 3.05) and create a higher CFM reading by preventing air leakage.

Our engineers have noted that when the air-flow of our Enforcer is tested, the operative's right hand is in (and remains in) a position on the recovery tank lid hinge where, if force were applied, would pivot the lid away from where it should seal and creates air leakage, giving a lower CFM reading (see time 2.13 on Cleansmart video).

Is the operative's wink at the end significant?

We believe the fairest way would be for an independent third party to test standard versions of both machines under agreed simulated working conditions.

Please ring me on 01795 436999 if you wish to discuss this or come and help me set up a test method you feel is fair.

Kind regards
Derek Ashby
Ashbys Cleaning Equipment

[john martin]

 jeez , don't know about anyone else but i think his three remarks implying Cleansmart have fixed their test figures are lame as hell  ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXn5gL3AaBs

Firstly he says that at 2.54 -3.07 the CFM gauge shows 400-300 before settling down , i cat see 400 anywhere , looks like it goes straight to the high 200s-300


Then he implys that whatever plastic/metal device at the back ( perhaps added on later models to keep lid from falling off ? ) is a clamp .... surely when the vacuums are switched on the lid clamps it self in a tight seal anyway

An then he suggests the guys hand that is lightly resting on the lid of the enforcer is causing an air leak ...

sounds like lame excuses to me  

[John Milnes]

In our video the Enforcer tested was brand new. The Cleansmart Airflex Turbo was not brand new, but was in good working order

There is another factor to take into account. Some of the early Airflexes waste tanks suffered from a crack due to thin wall thickness which could/may account for a test failure or discrepancy.

That crack in the waste tank (just behind the front control panel) if there was one, would render any test useless.

Only evident if the front control panel is removed.

Another spanner

[brianbarber]

I think Derek's offer of an independent test is the best way forward.

Can't be fairer than that....for all parties concerned.


Mr B

[james roffey]

From my own experiences i have only had machines from Ashby's and Cleansmart and i can say without question that i know who's more likely to play dirty.
Ashby's took every opportunity to screw money out of me when i had my Ninja, even the manner of the making of this recent video shows their true colours, using a customers machine behind his back and in so doing depriving him, their customer of his property and means of earning a living.
Mat at Cleansmart has always been fair, honest and generous with me even to the point of being out of pocket to maintain my machine working at it's peak performance, i got my Airflex of ebay and it was one of the earlier machines some modificatons were made to improve performance further and Mat had this done free of charge even though i got his machine elswhere, that says a lot in my book. he has also on ocasion talked me out of buying stuff from him that he thinks i do not need, why would a supplier do that, i think he understands his customers, for me i trust him to always give me good advice rather that the mistrust i soon developed while using Ashby's who certainly in my opinion had the "quick buck" attitude
Quite understandably Mat is upset that "his baby" a machine that is not a generic clone of another machine, but something he has developed himself into a great machine is     unscrupulously examined by another supplier is a step too far.

[james roffey]

John

You asked about the metal clamp behind the Airflex lid, my machine which is an early model has this, it's not new or added  to enhance the performance for this test.
"talk about clutching at straws"
When you place the lid on you push it under this first, but you are right when all vac motors on it creates a vacuum which clamps the lid to the body, that metal bar makes no difference the fact that it slides under that bar means it has quite a clearance, when the vacs are on the clearance is greater still so whatever it's for it is not to improve the performance.

[Simon@arenaclean]

The metal clamp was simply put there to stop the lid tiping forward when heavy 2" hose was attached. Since the lid was modified  a couple of years ago it's not really needed.

[john martin]

 Yes , i had to look a couple of times to see what he was talking about ... clearly even from the vid it has nothing to do with the vacuum seal .
And any idea then the chap doing the test is breaking the vacuum seal on the enforcer with his hand is equally ridiculous .
And he must know three motors in parallel  is a lot more than 200cfm  .....  and that you can't have high lift and high cfm together in series on his own machine .

Roll on than independent test ...  although i can see them dragging it out  or backing out .

This Derek Ashby guy needs to be exposed for the BS merchant i suspect he is .