how good is a CFR

« **on:** March 01, 2007, 03:33:51 pm »

could anybody give me a bit of feedback on the CFR range of portables...they have good heat, great CFM and recycling ability...all seem too good to be true as surely everyone would be using one...??

I seem to have got my research down to the CFR, the Scorpion or the Mytee speedster.

Thanks

« **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2007, 05:41:56 pm »

Steve,

I have a CFR, and over time I have given it to four different cleaners to use, non would recommend over our 450psi ninja.

I may have been unlucky, but I've found it unrealiable, I don't like the three pronged plugs, right near water, its got no CE marking which itself is illegal.

The heat and cleaning of the CFR wand are not great compared to whats available.

It needs to be kept spottless inside with the filters or it won't work

If you have it in someones house, and say its got too much detergent in it and froths, it just pumps the foam and water from every orific, it doesnt stop unlike the ninja.

I am sure people on here will disagree with me but this is my opiniumt if I was looking for a new machine, I'd give the CFR a wide berth, if I knew then what I know now.

Regards

CATMAN

« **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2007, 06:02:26 pm »

^^ I agree.

Its a nice concept and does work but as soon as you do any real dirty carpet cleaning your better off with a normal extractor. The cleaning of filters I didnt mind but they only work up too a point so you end replacing the water just as much anyway. I kept the hand tools and use them with the scorpion, the cfr I would use if I just did upholstery.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2007, 06:28:45 pm »

thanks

« **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2007, 12:51:18 am »

HI STEVE,I use a cfr but all my work is domestic so the carpets are not like those that the commercial guys are cleaning.Ifind the machine brilliant.I leave it outside the door,run 60ft off it
with another 25 in the van.mine is the ozone model,cold water and it does a fantastic job.I use the glide wand and you can clean with one hand it`s so smooth.Regarding the foaming all you need is a little defoamer in the hose before you start

I`ve had a ninja but theweight of draging the hoses plus emptying buckets soon had me looking for an allternative.With the cfr all I do is stick the hose under a tap every hour or so to freshen up the tank and away we go.I admit if I was cleaning real gungy carpets or if I was employing brain dead muscle men I would give them something else but for my own use and the domestic market
I would definitly recomend it.For office and shop work Iuse a buffer,charley pads from soloution uk
and one step at 15 to1 dillution.

I hope this helps and remember we`re all right in our own way but we`re just approaching it from
our own uniqe perspectives.So if you`re mainly after the relatively clean domestic market buy one.

you wont regret it and I`ve found amtech great to deal with.sorry if this sounds like an advert
but I`m genuinely very happy with the machine

regards RICE

« **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2007, 07:36:43 am »

I have two cfr Pro-station 400 machines and find they give me excellent results. Yes you have to clean the tank and filters out religously but we should be doing that anyway.
I have used a good many different varieties of machines over the years and they all require servicing and minor repairs from time to time ...its part of the job.. its why I own two machines.
If one machine goes down I can disconnect and link in the second machine and get like for like performance.

I use a roller wand and recently I have been using the Wonder Wand...both excellent floor tools although the Wonder Wand, I admit, is easier to use

« **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2007, 08:44:52 am »

i heard of one going bang! and giving the operator a electric shock - a big one!

« **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2007, 01:10:49 pm »

I am new to the carpet cleaning industry and chose CFR because of the unlikelyhood of being able to overwet the carpets. (Wanted something a bit foolproof to suit me!)

I have the ProStation 400 and find that it is great.

I have had referral upon referral from my customers stating that they are over the moon with the results.

Cleaning the filters really isn't that much of a chore, takes a few minutesat the end of the day and ensures a clean start the next day.

I am glad to hear the Derek Bolton uses the same machines... makes me feel better. Looking forwarde to meeting you Derek on the 20th march.

Hope this helps

Andy

« **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2007, 02:59:15 pm »

thank you all

« **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2007, 03:55:50 pm »

I purchased the CFR system recently, thats the Pro-500 Perfect Heat with Wonder Wand, i've been carpet cleaning for about 13yrs and have used a variety of cleaning methods. believe me i wished i'd have got one of these systems years ago, it would have save me alot of time and money, its that good, easy to move about and is good for my bad back!!!!!!!!!!!!

it i'll clean any carpet no matter how dirty.

« **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2007, 04:41:38 pm »

Steve

From your initial post, it would appear that you are thinking about the more conventional Twin Tank CFR rather than the recycling type of machine. Everyone I've spoken to with a twin tank raves about it. Those with a recycling system are nearly all favourable too. It would appear that more often than not, the main issues revolve around not cleaning the filters well enough on the recyclers.

I use some product from Amtech UK and some CFR tools and have found their products, service and support to be excellent.

The CFR machines are, IMO, worthy of serious consideration. See them at the NEC Cleaning Show.

Safe and happy cleaning

Ken

« **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2007, 05:21:55 pm »

Howdy All,

To those that know me, I love to potter around with things and try to adapt/ change/ improve on them.

Take your regular Hydromaster filter, get some 20 micron hollander weave mesh made into a sock for the filter and slide it over the hydromaster filter then pop this into your Ninja waste tank.
Re-plumb your inlet and outlet solution hoses to the waste tank and hang them over the top of the filter and down into the water with a little acorn filter on the end of the inlet hose to stop any stray airborne matter from the vacuum inlet ... er ... ... That's it.
Total cost of parts iro £120. Dah dah

I've been using my ninja 400psi with this adaption for a couple of months now and can report that the results are MIND BLOWING.
As such I have now removed the V2 heating system and the second vac motor. So chuffed with results I'm building myself a new machine from scratch in April.

If you're not one for tinkering then I'd say the cfr machine is the best one out there. Because of the way that that whole cfr system works it doesn't need the heat or vacuum power of the 'super porty's' out there to be able to produce astonishing results.

All the best
Alan

« **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2007, 07:30:53 pm »

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!

I 'VE been supporting CFR'S for years and always believed it to be a fantastic system.........only problem being the " push to extract " which takes a while to get used to, however...........I found that most of the time, I was cleaning, very effectively, with 200 psi, but it was handy to have 400 available when necessary.

The best result I ever got on a carpet, was with the CFR on an 80 / 20 Axmimster, which was twenty years old, never been cleaned and it came up, absolutely, like new !

« **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2007, 09:31:30 pm »

As many of you will know I have been a fan of the CFR system for a very long time, even before my involvement with the current distributor. In fact my family business came very close to becoming the UK distributor for the system in 1993, but because of pressures of work, we missed out and another company took the system on.

In the hands of a properly trained technician the CFR system will deliver out standing results regardless of peoples issues with the recycling aspect of the system.

The CFR system adopts the same principle as Truckmounts, higher pressure and water flow removes more soiling, but unlike a truckmount the system doesn’t rely entirely on superheated cleaning solutions and or vacuum performance. The CFR’s continuous flow tooling enables the machine to clean very effectively and recover more soils/moisture than a conventional extractor even with only 1 vacuum.

It is however a system that suits some but not others, especially if you do a search for CFR and read through some of the heated debates we’ve had on the forums over the years. It has become for some a system that you either love or hate!

I have been in the industry since 1989 and have benefited from continuous high quality training and high quality equipment, using high performance portables and truckmounts since 1994. I rate the system highly, even though in the last couple of years high performance portables have become the norm for the professional cleaner. We are now spoilt for choice with the verity of high performance equipment now available.

It doesn’t suit every body and even my brother who knows the system well, still prefers a conventional twin tank HP machine, even if it means emptying the machine every 20 minutes.

Regards

Steve

« **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2007, 09:45:20 pm »

What intrigues me is how can a machine with one vac motor clean more thoroughly AND leave carpets drier? Surely this is a perversion of science and technological advancement-or is it just marketing bumpf?

Damian.

« **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2007, 09:50:52 pm »

Steve

Very fair comment, from you, "having changed horses" recently.

Damian

Steve touched on the technicalities of the system..............it's about " constant flow" of both air and water, with clever tooling..........it's not hype..........it really works.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2007, 09:58:25 pm »

Rob it cannot possibly pull more vacuum than a two or three times, three stage motored machine-period! No matter what hype is put forward the more motors sucking, the more suction. Thats it.

Damian.

« **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:08:00 pm »

Hi Damian

The CFR tooling is designed to work with the surface that’s being cleaned and completes a hydraulic circuit when in contact with textiles or hard flooring. The water flow is under constant movement and never subjected to gravitational forces, that can hinder the drying times of conventional extractors.

I owned both 400 psi (1.4 US gpm) and 1000 psi (2.2 US gpm) CFR’s extractors and cleaned carpets, including rugs and Belgium Wiltons at these pressures without moisture penetrating the backing of carpets. I would often demonstrate this effectiveness on Belgium Wiltons and Wool Axminster carpets making up to 20 passes without shrinkage occurring.

Regards

Steve

PS. Rob, as you are aware business relationships can turn sour, I fell out with Amtech not their products.

« **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:14:13 pm »

Believe what you like......................I bought a 400 psi / single vac CFR around 12 years ago and it's capabitities are amazing.

You can dwell on heavily soiled areas, without soaking and get extraordinary results on a day to day basis.

As mentioned, it's not about vac'power, it's about engineering, air flow and constant water flow and it's been proven over a long, long time !!!!!!!!!!!

Much better explanation than mine, Steve

PS

Steve, you must have been frustrated with the failure of Franklin's to capitalise on the opportunity you gave them, or maybe the market just was'nt ready !

« **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:22:19 pm »

Steve,
Most wands complete a "hydraulic circuit" when connected with the textile to be cleaned. The fact of the matter is you cannot withdraw, extract, pull or whatever your term is used to "drag" more moisture from a textile than vacuum power! The more vacuum motors you have give more vacuum at the tool head-until a law of diminishing return. Its basic science. I cannot see how a one times three stage three vac motor will get textiles drier than three times three stage motor etc.

Damian.

« **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:40:59 pm »

Hi Damian,

Your missing my point and the fact that CFR’s tooling is unique and patented. It enables 'unlimited' additional passes whilst having total fluid control, something that is not possible with conventional tooling even when used with truckmounts or high performance portables. I know plenty of people with both TM’s and HP Hwe’s who’ve still shrunk carpets. This is impossible with CFR’s tooling unless you break the hydraulic seal and lift the wand of the carpet!

Hi Rob,

Cibenze, a national contract carpet care company took on CFR distribution from the original European master distributor MDS in Holland. Amtech came in to the frame much later and took over the UK distribution and then sold the system through Franklins, who were a sub-distributor of their products for the north/midlands area. This relationship also turned sour and subsequently introduced another Microsplitter to the market.

To some though the system is still ahead of its time!

Cheers

Steve

« **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:53:33 pm »

Whether you like it , or not, scientific teory does'nt always work, in practice, or can be proven to be wrong !

Steve

I was one of the Franklin customers, who bought the machines and product, also the little Klanz, which I wish I still had in my arsenal.

« **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:57:25 pm »

Steve,

No i am not missing the point at all, the operator in charge of the "said tool" ie-wand has the ability to control solution flow-with the the trigger! Then afterwards if he/she decides it needs a drying stroke/s then so be it. Like i said more vac motors=more vacuum.

Damian.

« **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2007, 11:01:49 pm »

Quote from: carpetguy on March 02, 2007, 10:53:33 pm

Whether you like it , or not, scientific teory does'nt always work, in practice, or can be proven to be wrong !

Steve

I was one of the Franklin customers, who bought the machines and product, also the little Klanz, which I wish I still had in my arsenal.
[/

If that was aimed at me Robbie then yes science always works chap! lol xquote]

« **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2007, 11:24:06 pm »

Obviously Damian, you are of the " closed mind "set and even if you saw thesystem being demonstrated, you woul refuse to believe your eyes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My spine and pelvis............according to science, were rendered useless, having compressed and the vertebrae become fused.............fortunately, I found a wonderful gent who refused to accept that science was always right and had my mobility fully restored.............that was 5 years ago

« **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2007, 11:28:04 pm »

Hi Damian,

I should’ve explained a little more clearly. CFR’s tooling is enclosed with both the solution chamber including nozzles and vacuum chamber positioned at such an angle that when in contact with textiles a hydraulic circuit is completed. The soultion is injected into the fibre and simultaneously extracted at the same time. This ‘patented’ design effectively seals the tool onto the surface with just one vacuum, creating a vortex effect, thoroughly washing the fibre without moisture penetrating the backing of carpets or the foam cushioning of upholstery, regardless of the number of cleaning passes used.

If you were to try and mimic the number of passes that can be made with conventional carpet and upholstery tooling, then you would flood a carpet or leave a suite wet for weeks.

As Rob has said seeing is believing. Whilst the CFR tooling design is patented, 2 other manufacturers offer similar high-flow moisture control tools, 1 being Hydramaster with their DriMaster tooling and Steamway with their Hydro Kinetic tooling.

These shouldn’t be confused with the internal jet tools that have the solution nozzle situated in the vacuum chamber. As the solution is applied vacuum pulls the solution away from the surface so very little moisture actually comes into contact with the fabric.

Cheers

Steve

« **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2007, 11:37:57 pm »

Robbie you daft sod!-If you had taken time to know me rather than try to persecute me as you have tried before then perhaps you may have realised that im quite knowledgeable on the old cleaning game!! Closed mind-erm no-I look at everything with a magpie's eye! However i dont appreciate someone trying to pull the wool! I realise its a closed shop in "ere" and also understand that there is a clique going on but the question over cleaning with a single vac motor will always in my mind have a laughable effect!!

ps-if you play nice i may post piccies of my new shop! lol

Damian.

« **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2007, 11:43:33 pm »

I should’ve added that with CFR’s tooling design, the solution trigger can also be held permanently on during vacuum extraction whilst it’s in contact with the surface. You can even hold it in the same place for as long as you like without fear of flooding. Again, something that’s simply not possible with conventional tooling.

With coventional tooling however, vacuum performance does indeed compensate, so when used with truckmounts and HP portables with 2,3 or more vacuums they will recover excess moisture and i.e. more soil

Regards

Steve

« **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2007, 11:53:22 pm »

Steve-i was gonna quote you but its beginning to sound like a plug to your machine? Hope im wrong? However, i understand what you are saying and yes if it works for you then i'm pleased, BUT the reason of my question is quite simply-more vacs=more power-SIMPLE! If you get some numb nut opening the trigger whilst sitting there then yes-the carpet may shrink, but the system you are telling me of-(which i have seen before-many times-i hasten to add!!) works for some but not hardened op's.

Damian.

« **Reply #29 on:** March 02, 2007, 11:56:59 pm »

Damian

Closed shop................clique................Steve is part of the Solutions team, which I'm banned from, but a well known and respected gent in the business.

God knows where the clique idea stems from, sure there are a few of the regulars on here and I'm not one, who have got to know each other through trade meetings / training venues, but they are very independent

The host is Express Cleaning ( Mike Boxall ) who leaves it to moderators to police the postings although he could easily take advantage of his position and promote his Prochem and other ranges.

I come from a practical background, more engineering ( practical ) than scientific ( theoretical )

« **Reply #30 on:** March 03, 2007, 12:04:06 am »

Robbie

Isaid closed mind-not shop. I dont care at all what people do or say-way too busy with other projects! although i do have fond memories of you surmising i was a-how you put it-"high heeled stetson wearer" haha i did laugh at that-past 3am! Was very busy then and no time to talk.

Damian.

« **Reply #31 on:** March 03, 2007, 12:06:00 am »

Incidentally

You should know that Steve is no longer connected with CFR and so he's not really being defensive, just informative, however..............no matter how informative you are, or how good a communicator you are, if a mind is closed, to reality and can only see theory, you might as well pack up and go home.

Scientists should be inquisitive and open to alternatives, otherwise they would work in a vacuum and I don't mean a triple three stage.

goodnight

Just caught your last post about cowboys ...........wonder what gave me that idea !!!!!!!!!!!!

« **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2007, 12:11:58 am »

Robbie
behave yourself! Its obvious you are going to pick an argument at the slightest excuse-you sure you dont drink? lol I am only questioning facts that i percieve to be open to debate.

Damian

« **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2007, 12:17:01 am »

Robbie

Now now dont get personal! lol Like i said before call me what you want-including rawhide-then i will have great pleasure in showing you to my customers and businesses. There is no call for animosity at all x

Damian.

« **Reply #34 on:** March 03, 2007, 08:34:41 am »

I think to a degree all machines work although some just get better results than another. That can be down to the operator and or the machine. To keep it simple as too much maybe has already been said. If the cfr machine is or was any good then why oh why will they not enter into a clean off under test conditions against other machines that are on the market. I think deep down we all know the answer to that question because we all know it will not out clean just about any other machine out there. Save the low moisture machines, cos they don't show up at clean offs either. Does make you wonder why?? Best, Dave.

« **Reply #35 on:** March 03, 2007, 08:52:02 am »

Dave

The cfr has been successfully demonstrated (by Steve Carpenter) at several events alongside other machines including truck mounted units.

Although Steve is in the process of moving on in his business activities he is extremely knowledgable on cfr technology (and many other systems for that matter)

You are absolutely correct when you state that it is the technician who makes a machine work effectively...or not

Regards

« **Reply #36 on:** March 03, 2007, 09:43:49 am »

Derek, then I stand corrected. Having said that I have organised 4 clean offs in California where I still have one of my cleaning business's (?) and cfr declined to attend any of them. When I moved back to the UK I tried to get a clean off with cfr (dont know who I spoke with) and they declined again. Even texatherm and chem dry turned up. They then went away with their tails between their legs but at least they showed up in the first place............ If all machines, from vlm to lm, basic portables to upgraded portables and then on to a high end truck mount were the same price to purchase? Then what do you think people would buy? I very much doubt it would be a cfr. Paul has a different machine to what he was using and now finds no comparison to that which he was using. Yet at the time he would swear he was cleaning well before hand. Best, Dave.

« **Reply #37 on:** March 03, 2007, 01:01:15 pm »

Wow, this subject's had some posting!

I second everything Steve said about the cfr system. Didn't know you'd moved away from Amtech. What you up to now?
I'm waiting for my 1200psi 5gpm stinger to wing its way over from the states. I'm shoe horning it into a new ninja base with some other trick toys.
Dave, if I had the time

I'd willingly compare cleaning results. I guarantee there would be NO difference.

Signin' out
Alan

« **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2007, 01:18:42 pm »

Alan

Curious about your amendments to the Ninja. can you expand a little............like you, I've always tried to improve on any tools I've ever used and got some interesting results.

Daves idea of a " cleen off " is to get a carpet thats been dragged around a bus station or similar and have various systems compete..............but not sure if they all have to use the same products, etc

I read a report some time ago, where a particular product, used with a rotary, got a better result than a t/m, so there really is no black and white.

Great to see real life debate, excluding one contributor. No apologies Damian and I don't drink, but can't resist adding to peoples knowledge when I perceive a gap !

« **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2007, 05:07:24 pm »

Robbie

No apology expected nor required, it is after all a forum where debates sometimes get heated but there is hopefully no malice intended. Sometimes it is how we learn each other on the merits and benefits of various equipment etc.

By the way i own TWO of these and i have just closed this one for the day

« **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2007, 05:41:54 pm »

I don't do malice Damian, but I do get a bit frustrated when someone refuses to accept, that someone else might know more than they do, particularly, when the someone else has extensive experience and understanding of the subject, being debated.

I hope you realise I'm not referring to myself, as the other, someone !!!!!!!!!!!

rob

« **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2007, 05:44:52 pm »

Who then??

Just jessin

Damian.

« **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2007, 05:58:52 pm »

Damian, you have a flat tyre. Best, Dave.

« **Reply #43 on:** March 03, 2007, 06:06:27 pm »

Dave

Well spotted that man! A very good eye for detail! Didnt know til i went sideways on a country road on way home-ended up rolling it off the rim! haha oh well. She is a good old gal that has given me many good years service and i wont let her go-had her from new. again well spotted Dave.

Damian.

« **Reply #44 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:22:01 am »

damian , it could do with a clean as well lol

« **Reply #45 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:54:18 am »

Damian

It's not about power, it's about physics and engineering. Using the logic that you have shown of more cfm = drier, then your Fireblade should be faster than an 800cc M1 :

Different tools are designed to work in different ways. Some claim that a little bit of Teflon on the end of their wands produces drier carpets without any increase in cfms. That's down to physics and engineering. I have spoken to people who tell me that even their T/Ms and portables clean and dry better with a Wonder Wand. That's down to physics and engineering. I'm going to try one of these for myself.

46 Rules

Ken

« **Reply #46 on:** March 04, 2007, 11:08:09 am »

I think he should have got the message by now!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good analogy Ken and nice to see so many previous, experienced and knowledgeable posters re-appearing on this forum.

Damian...........being a perfectionist, can be a handicap, at times, tends to cloud the eyes and dull the hearing..........I'm sure you're too intelligent, to think the comments on forums, are meant to be taken personally.

At 61, I'm still learning and try to keep an open mind.

rob

« **Reply #47 on:** March 04, 2007, 12:11:59 pm »

Hi Ken,

When the Wonder Wand was introduced alongside the twin vac CFR machines, I’d noticed a loss of rinsing ability on heavily soiled carpets when using it. I’d been cleaning trashed carpet and only needed to make 1-2 rinse passes with the standard roller wand. When using the Wonder Wand I had to make 4-5 passes to restore a pre-soiled appearance. Also, streaking was evident on some heavily soiled carpets.

Whereas the standard wand at the time was fitted with 3 x 015 nozzles the Wonder Wand was fitted with 3 x 01 nozzles. This in effect according to CFR enabled constant ‘contact’ rinsing of 500 psi, however this reduction in nozzle size also reduced water flow and in my opinion reduced its rinsing effectiveness.

I brought this to both the main distributor and manufacturers attention at the time but it fell on deaf ears. To me it was an issue that I couldn’t ignore, so I suggested to customers and also to distributors that had encountered the problem to upgrade to 3 x 015 nozzles when using the wand with a CFR or HP Portable and 3 x 02 nozzles when used with a truckmount (to compensate for increased vacuum performance).

This resolved the issue, so it’s worth looking into if you go down that route.

Cheers

Steve

« **Reply #48 on:** March 04, 2007, 12:14:39 pm »

Thanks Steve

Safe and happy cleaning

Ken

« **Reply #49 on:** March 04, 2007, 01:30:11 pm »

what the hell is a CFR machine
i'm totally lost when people talk about them
and what does CFR stand for?

« **Reply #50 on:** March 04, 2007, 02:06:23 pm »

Are you serious Colin ?

Constant Flow (at the wand ) Recycling, ( of the water / chemical )

They've been around for at least a decade and the subject of much debate...........as many can't get their head round the concept of recycling the cleaning fluid, but, as you will have gathered from the comments, the system works extremely well and allows you to dwell on heavily soiled areas without soaking.

rob

« **Reply #51 on:** March 04, 2007, 02:52:55 pm »

wow that took some reading

ive seen people banging on about clean offs

well wheres the resuts at ? surly they would spk for themselfs ?
who won what, who as last ect ect

« **Reply #52 on:** March 04, 2007, 03:16:35 pm »

1ST.......

Dave / Liahona, has the male ( testosterone ) problem, reckoning that "big is best"no matter what, unlike some others, who believe in technique and quality!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There have been " clean offs "over the years, sometimes, with surprising results, eg, I heard of one a couple of years ago, when a Rotary apparently achieved superior results over a t/m, something, many will find hard to accept........

« **Reply #53 on:** March 04, 2007, 04:41:23 pm »

I was there

« **Reply #54 on:** March 04, 2007, 04:55:18 pm »

Which "there" Derek, the one I.m referring to with the rorary was'nt Tex', or D/F, it was a normal rotary, with a rather special " in my opinion "product, fron Spartanburg, accross the pond.

rob

« **Reply #55 on:** March 04, 2007, 05:02:44 pm »

The one I saw was an OP machine...on the day out performed all the others.. I have to admit I was surprised

« **Reply #56 on:** March 04, 2007, 05:42:20 pm »

As I said Derek, there are many who would find it very difficult to accept the results, even if they were there and witnessed a positive result.

Was the event you saw in the US ?

ROB

« **Reply #57 on:** March 04, 2007, 06:13:28 pm »

thanks for that carpet Guy. but never used one
now you've explained what CFR stands for, i get it

« **Reply #58 on:** March 04, 2007, 06:45:30 pm »

Rob, if you're talking about Argosheen from spartenburg, I used to import it and could get amazing results, it could compete with a t/m on some occasions, but not all the time.

I've got a delivery coming across this week from ArgoCo (50 argobonnets)

Mike

« **Reply #59 on:** March 04, 2007, 08:43:26 pm »

The fact that Argosheen stunk the house out of a solvent type smell is irrelivant.

Shaun

« **Reply #60 on:** March 04, 2007, 08:46:29 pm »

I liked the smell

« **Reply #61 on:** March 04, 2007, 09:32:26 pm »

It's a very mild and according to clients, pleasant smell Shaun..................sure you did'nt drop something ?

rob

« **Reply #62 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:26:21 pm »

Solvent smelling trumps are new to me

Shaun

« **Reply #63 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:42:10 pm »

IT'S ONLY 10% SOLVENT Shaun, did'nt mean to shout, and while it's an unusual smell, it's sweet and I think quite pleasant

« **Reply #64 on:** March 08, 2007, 08:46:25 am »

Rob, I understand what you are saying as indeed under most circumstances I think bigger is better. Although not all. Having said that if bigger wasnt better why do manufactures keep upgrading their machines to higher solution pressures and more vacuum and more heat? CFR being the biggest culprit of this. They didnt use to clean with heat or at a high pressure. Now that they do so they have a better resulting clean. Therefore surely in cfr's "suggestion" bigger is better. Best, Dave.

« **Reply #65 on:** March 08, 2007, 09:31:51 am »

Dave,

The CFR was designed in the 70’s. It’s always utilised high pressure for cleaning carpets from day 1, having models that operated with 200 psi (Performa series), 400 psi (Pro 400 and Altra Series) and then in the mid eighties a 1000 psi pump model.

They also had a model, the Altra Pro ‘Heat’ operating with a 400-psi pump and internal heat exchanger from the mid eighties. At that time CFR were one of only two companies offering machines, with an ‘internal heat exchanger’. US Products being the other manufacturer.

The system has operated comfortably with a single vac for years. They only added a second vac a few years ago following market pressures. Customers couldn’t understand why CFR only used one vacuum when every body else was adding additional vacs. This was due to the design of conventional and ‘industry standard’ wands, manufacturers had no choice but to add vacuums as they increased solution pressures to mimic the ‘on the carpet results’ of truckmounts. So now the High Performance portable is commonplace.

Regards

Steve

« **Reply #66 on:** March 08, 2007, 12:46:07 pm »

Thats exactly my point. From where they first started they have since gone to higher pressures and heat. Best, Dave.

« **Reply #67 on:** March 08, 2007, 01:19:36 pm »

Read my post again Dave. CFR introduced both 200 psi and 400 psi extractors from day 1.

« **Reply #68 on:** March 08, 2007, 01:57:18 pm »

I understood the post. Therefore again, CFR are now using a "bigger" machine now than they have done in the past. Else they would still be using what they were if there was no need to go bigger. I know the recovery of the machine in design are close to being second to none and I have never questioned its ability to recover. We all know heat is usually the choice to clean with and accordingly it was an add on later in its development. If bigger wasnt better then why are there choices of machines? Does the "lesser" of the models clean with the same results as the "higher" of the models and or do the same job? If so then again why are there lesser and better machines in its own range? Last thing, really, why would they have a 200 and 400 psi machine from day one? Or is it that the 400 would have better results than the 200. I have never said that these machines dont work or get good results but under normal circumstances bigger is better. As is shown in the CFR range. Best, Dave.

« **Reply #69 on:** March 08, 2007, 02:03:08 pm »

Steve thats funny ! I like it.

mimic the ‘on the carpet results’ of truckmounts

« **Reply #70 on:** March 08, 2007, 02:21:32 pm »

Gentlemen;

All great comments above .

However, IMHO, the absolute best statement that we should "never" forget when speaking in generic terms is what ken Wainwright stated:

"....It's not about power, it's about physics and engineering..."

The very best;
Ed Valentine
cross-american corp.

« **Reply #71 on:** March 08, 2007, 07:04:52 pm »

True Ed, but who's physics and engineering. I've read your posts, along with your fellow countrymen for a few years and been fascinated by the arguments.................however, I've tried to keep an open mind and tried / tested everything that came along.

Dave.................you're not listening / reading...............CFR is not going bigger...........they have, since the mid 80's supplied, up to 1000 psi, in a portable, into which you could put hot or cold water, or add an online heater............they were marketed here UK along with One Step, which does not need heat.

ROB

« **Reply #72 on:** March 08, 2007, 07:14:55 pm »

why did CFR start with only one vac......?

could it have been the were developed in the USA so had to work with a lower voltage, so once they had fitted such a big pump ( which requires a bigger motor so needs more power) they didnt have enough power remaining to use 2 vacs

big pump & 2 vacs mean blown fuses on a single plug.

Mike

« **Reply #73 on:** March 08, 2007, 07:35:07 pm »

Rob;

Thank you for asking:

"True Ed, but who's physics and engineering"

On one hand, I'm not quite sure why you asked this question if you agreed with me. However, I will answer by stating that when real engineering is applied, and physics are used (as should be, btw) in establishing real performance and efficiency---------------------rather than copying or cloning something (which normally happens in alot of Industries)------then those elements that I have mentioned truly make US different as manufacturers and therefore, offers the Operators a newer and fresher alternative.

I will only use ONE example of the above that I can attribute to being the first to develop: The POWER BOOSTER System that we had developed in the '70s. Now, this concept is common place (wether copied or cloned) on almost all continents in the World.

Making products more efficient means making them different by taking full advantage of the physics, engineering, and design capabilites that will benefit and push forth much better and perhaps advanced equipment for the Operator.

That is my answer and has been my experience over the years.

Hope this helped answer your question & thank you for those kind words.

I thank you, sir.

Best regards;
Ed Valentine
cross-american corp.

« **Reply #74 on:** March 08, 2007, 09:08:54 pm »

RobI feel I read and listened. It has been said by Steve and yourself that in the mid 80's a machine was available with 1000 psi. It has also been said that the first 200 and 400 psi machines were out so to speak in the 70's. This being the case why the need for the jump from 400 to 1000 if bigger isnt better. Surely the higher pressure with heat is a better machine. Or am I missing something. If it isnt better then why make it in the first place as I could just buy the smaller machine and be at the same place so tp speak. We all know the bigger machine is better. Best, Dave.