Brodex Super-Light Modular Pole System

« **on:** October 13, 2009, 05:47:39 am »

At the recent `Fed `trade show at Blackpool,the Brodex company
Had their super -light modular pole system up outside and on display
Etc.The rep said it was 45 feet and with a vikan brush on and judging
By it`s weight to use I myself was very impressed.As with all modular
Poles( fishing poles ) sections tend sometimes to stick and `jam`especially
At heights above 30 feet I find.Has any members got this pole for their
Everyday use? If so,how do you find it? Opinions and comments appreciated.

Lewis Doubtfire Gleem Clean ( The Blade Runner )

« **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:39:43 am »

I haven't actually used the brodex one, but did have a feel of it at the show, felt up to the job.

I do however use Gardiners SL2 on a regular basis and have found that the sections can/do stick occasionally but this is easily prevented by spraying with the teflon spray which is provided and actually works.

The pole is light (used to 45ft) easy to handle, (unless in high winds when it becomes very unstable), can be awkward at times when in between heights of different sections, (is either too long or too short, a half length section could sort this out) and when shortening the pole whilst using where do you store the section you remove?( the pole cannot be left extended while you stow the section removed in the van, unless it is lowered to the ground) and if just left around could be stood on or even blow away in a light breeze as they are that light.

Excellent pole tho' for high work and is a godsend over the old 18lb 45ft carbon telescopic I used to use.
Hope this makes sense.

« **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:07:45 am »

Lewis

Forget the sprays etc, there will always be times when you forget or cant be bothered.

You just want to use the pole, I feel the manufacturers have an obligation to stop this happening and i dont mean a can of spray.

I have had to destroy a couple of sections to get them undone in the past.

The pole WILL get stuck together at times and will drive you insane, it can turn a 20 min job into a full day affair unlocking poles.

Unless you have a cast Iron grip and can cope with them locking up buy one, dont expect it to be trouble free though.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:19:37 am »

Quote from: Dave morris @ st-ives on October 13, 2009, 08:07:45 am

Lewis

Forget the sprays etc, there will always be times when you forget or cant be bothered.

You just want to use the pole, I feel the manufacturers have an obligation to stop this happening and i dont mean a can of spray.

I have had to destroy a couple of sections to get them undone in the past.

The pole WILL get stuck together at times and will drive you insane, it can turn a 20 min job into a full day affair unlocking poles.

Unless you have a cast Iron grip and can cope with them locking up buy one, dont expect it to be trouble free though.

I have to say David in defence of this type of pole that you are probably a company's nightmare user

- Absolutely no spray, no maintenance and employees man-handling! and yet you still do not use anything but the Super-Lites on serious work.......can't be that bad

Well done Debbie on the World Record.

« **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:31:15 am »

Alex

I mean it all in a nice way, yes i still use them, but i think we are quite early on in the development and there is a long way to go with these poles.

If i maintained my poles per spec, i would spend time maintaining than working.

These poles still earn me money, probably more than other poles at that height, but they arent without there problems.

My post looking back seemed unbalanced i hope this balances it out.

Lewis is 61 years old and couldnt pull the skin of a rice pudding ( well not quite Lewis LOL) thata why i answered in the manner i did.

« **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:34:35 am »

you mean you don't maintain your equipment on a daily/weekly basis, setting aside a regular time to do this. shame on you

« **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:36:32 am »

with 3 vans and 12 poles, what do you think ?

Where do i get time ?

« **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:49:24 am »

get your lads to do it , your paying them enough

« **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:50:16 am »

I cannot speak for the Brodex Carbon-Light, but my 2 Super-Lite® poles get a maximum of 10 mins 'care' a month. I keep them clean, occasionally have to re-glue on a protecta-ring and re-coat the joints....that's it. I haven't had a sticking section in years now.

« **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:53:28 am »

Quote from: Sean Dyer on October 13, 2009, 08:49:24 am

get your lads to do it , your paying them enough

Or, are you?

« **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:31:58 am »

Hi, mates.

Back to the theme, if anybody has comments for the new Brodex Super-Light Modular Pole?

Thanx in advance.

regards,

Vadim

« **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:40:08 am »

Quote from: steve a on October 13, 2009, 06:39:43 am

I haven't actually used the brodex one, but did have a feel of it at the show, felt up to the job.

I do however use Gardiners SL2 on a regular basis and have found that the sections can/do stick occasionally but this is easily prevented by spraying with the teflon spray which is provided and actually works.

The pole is light (used to 45ft) easy to handle, (unless in high winds when it becomes very unstable), can be awkward at times when in between heights of different sections, (is either too long or too short, a half length section could sort this out) and when shortening the pole whilst using where do you store the section you remove?( the pole cannot be left extended while you stow the section removed in the van, unless it is lowered to the ground) and if just left around could be stood on or even blow away in a light breeze as they are that light.

Excellent pole tho' for high work and is a godsend over the old 18lb 45ft carbon telescopic I used to use.
Hope this makes sense.

looking at moemgorods site - could this be a solution to th eproblem of modular poles when working???

http://www.moemgorod.com/index.php?productID=272

« **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2009, 10:12:15 am »

Quote from: Sean Dyer on October 13, 2009, 09:40:08 am

Quote from: steve a on October 13, 2009, 06:39:43 am
I haven't actually used the brodex one, but did have a feel of it at the show, felt up to the job.

I do however use Gardiners SL2 on a regular basis and have found that the sections can/do stick occasionally but this is easily prevented by spraying with the teflon spray which is provided and actually works.

The pole is light (used to 45ft) easy to handle, (unless in high winds when it becomes very unstable), can be awkward at times when in between heights of different sections, (is either too long or too short, a half length section could sort this out) and when shortening the pole whilst using where do you store the section you remove?( the pole cannot be left extended while you stow the section removed in the van, unless it is lowered to the ground) and if just left around could be stood on or even blow away in a light breeze as they are that light.

Excellent pole tho' for high work and is a godsend over the old 18lb 45ft carbon telescopic I used to use.
Hope this makes sense.

looking at moemgorods site - could this be a solution to th eproblem of modular poles when working???

http://www.moemgorod.com/index.php?productID=272

yes its called a golf bag

« **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2009, 10:16:31 am »

Or you could add a battery and pump

to make it go 12mph uphill

The old prostyle eleccy trolley (right) and the new £60 Hillbilly one (left)

Close up

« **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2009, 11:34:55 am »

I use a little bit of vaseline on the end of the poles, I find that this works better than the spray.

If you do get the pole stuck, I have found that if you twist both poles in opposite directions, they soon come unstuck, also do not jam the poles together, instead let the poles own weight do the job.

I also use a golf trolley to hold the poles, the only difference to the ones in the pictures is I have 8 tubes which are cut down drain pipes which the poles go into.

« **Reply #15 on:** October 13, 2009, 12:30:57 pm »

Quote from: Jeff Brimble on October 13, 2009, 10:16:31 am

Or you could add a battery and pump to make it go 12mph uphill
The old prostyle eleccy trolley (right) and the new £60 Hillbilly one (left)

Close up

Where do you get the hillbillie for £60 from?
the cheapest I could find was £150.
I wont one for my golf not for work lol

Matt

« **Reply #16 on:** October 13, 2009, 01:19:23 pm »

First things first.Dave,I`m not 61 older in fact but not much !
There`s always a good tune played on an old fiddle!
What about candle wax for not jamming?
That’s what my local fishing place recommend.I tried it,but
Perhaps like spray,there`s got to be `room `inbetween the sections
For it really to work,which I guess defeats the purpose.When I slid
My sections on the wax just `rode up `.First reply on here was good
I thought,although don`t know what Jeff Brimbles on about.
It`s only the bottom sections where the weight is that jam I find.
I agree with Dave Morris though,it is up to the manufactures.the
Ball so to speak is in their court.

Lewis Doubtfire Gleem Clean ( The Blade Runner )

« **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:22:05 pm »

I too have tried all sorts of methods(wax(worse)vaseline and various sprays !all to no avail.
In the end the best way is one off this forum! A few turns of electrical tape at a certain point (enough to support the pole)not too much that the pole still gets stuck(trial and error)
It would be nice if ,in the making process a natural stop was built in? Is there any reason not for this to be?

« **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:40:37 pm »

i dont bother with all the hassle of cleaning the modulars with sprays/wax etc.....as someone said its a time consuming exercise....so all i do is give each section a quick wipe with my glove (while they are on my hands of course) as i put them back in the bag....and mine have NEVER stuck together in the 3 years i have had them.

but i guess i just got the best of the poles at the time.

so there.

« **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:42:44 pm »

Quote from: stevieg on October 13, 2009, 04:22:05 pm

I too have tried all sorts of methods(wax(worse)vaseline and various sprays !all to no avail.
In the end the best way is one off this forum! A few turns of electrical tape at a certain point (enough to support the pole)not too much that the pole still gets stuck(trial and error)
It would be nice if ,in the making process a natural stop was built in? Is there any reason not for this to be?

The main reason that this is not built in to any push fit modular pole is that as the joint wore with age the joint stop would start to prevent the joint from seating properly which would lead to sudden joint failure.

The Super-Lites are designed to twist apart (clockwise) so when properly treated (PTFE and SPJ as supplied) even when stuck will twist apart if twisted in the right direction. Most Super-Lite users who end up with a section really stuck have usually tried to twist it the wrong way first thereby tightening the joint. One of the most important things with any of these types of poles is not to ram the sections together when assembling. They just need pushing together until tight.

One of my Super-Lite's is completely untreated - no spray, no SPJ, nothing - and has never jammed on me and all that requires is a simple twist to release. I put this down to careful assembly and careful use (not ramming it into the top of the window recess during use).

« **Reply #20 on:** October 13, 2009, 05:16:28 pm »

its always the lower section with the most weight on the them will jam.. you need to untwist them every now and them so they dont get too far pushed into the join and get stuck.

also as mentioned i dont feel pushing them together when tight is a good method, i prefer the push together until they "hold" and allow gravity to push them together to stop them spinning.

I think the ones that do get them stuck have not taken enough precautions in care of the pole to start with or haven;t followed the instructions on how to use the pole to gain maximum benefit from them.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:24:15 pm »

as Swiss Tony would say " handling a superlight is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman..................."

« **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:26:02 pm »

Just treat them for what they are, a light weight pole for working at great heights, they will wear and break and get stuck, but you have to accept that as part of the pole.

Some manufacturers wont touch them, you have to ask yourself why ?

« **Reply #23 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:34:04 pm »

Quote from: ftp on October 13, 2009, 06:24:15 pm

as Swiss Tony would say " handling a superlight is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman..................."

+1 no doubt.

But, please, is there any practical info about the new Brodex Carbon-Light? Is it possible to make the same comparison with love..?

Vadim

« **Reply #24 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:36:17 pm »

I wouldnt like to be his wife

« **Reply #25 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:49:46 pm »

What took my attention was,at 45 foot approx.with a Vikan brush
Attached there was very little `bend`working with the pole at that
Height.Another `rep`indoors said that the carbon lite pole itself
Differed very little from a normal carbon( not glass fiber I assume)
Fishing pole.The carbon fishing poles I use at 45 feet with a light
Bentley brush attached does have some well,certain amount of bend.
Mine certainly won`t take to a Vikan brush,,,much tooo heavy.
What do other members find?

Lewis Doubtfire Gleem Clean ( The Blade Runner )

« **Reply #26 on:** October 13, 2009, 07:31:42 pm »

They claim on their website that it's the lightest 60ft pole on the market!!

Alex?

Mind, they don't have the best record when it comes to an accurate description of their products!

« **Reply #27 on:** October 13, 2009, 07:45:47 pm »

Quote from: macmac™ on October 13, 2009, 07:31:42 pm

They claim on their website that it's the lightest 60ft pole on the market!!

Alex?

Mind, they don't have the best record when it comes to an accurate description of their products!

They are no lighter than the Super-Lite and the complete package will be a good bit heavier than the Super-Lite package. We have a client who has both and he has reported to us that the Super-Lite is noticeably stiffer when working. I have yet to examine the package myself but I'm very interested in the design of their top connector section as this is one of the parts that we have design patent protected so at some point I will purchase one for comparison and legality purposes.

« **Reply #28 on:** October 13, 2009, 07:50:52 pm »

Quote from: Alex Gardiner on October 13, 2009, 07:45:47 pm

I will purchase one for comparison and legality purposes.

Oh no, not you as well, lol

« **Reply #29 on:** October 13, 2009, 07:53:52 pm »

It is tiresome but occasionally we do have to take legal steps to protect our IP. We successfully dealt with the last person who blatantly copied parts of one of the parts of our pole design, cost us a fair bit in legal fees so the kids went without food for a month .......

« **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2009, 07:57:04 pm »

a wrap of insulation tape works well, stops the jamming

« **Reply #31 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:35:00 pm »

Quote from: Dave morris @ st-ives on October 13, 2009, 07:50:52 pm

Quote from: Alex Gardiner on October 13, 2009, 07:45:47 pm

I will purchase one for comparison and legality purposes.

Oh no, not you as well, lol

this place is getting like that " no win - no fee advert" the amount of legal eagles circling

« **Reply #32 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:47:20 pm »

Quote from: Ewan on October 13, 2009, 09:13:54 pm

Quote from: Alex Gardiner on October 13, 2009, 07:53:52 pm

It is tiresome but occasionally we do have to take legal steps to protect our IP. We successfully dealt with the last person who blatantly copied parts of one of the parts of our pole design, cost us a fair bit in legal fees so the kids went without food for a month .......

Did they blatantly copy your design Alex?

A previous individual did just this with one of our pole parts but a few solicitor's letters and proof of design patent protection did the job. I wouldn't have bothered design patenting it if I wasn't going to protect it!

« **Reply #33 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:51:15 pm »

Quote

They are no lighter than the Super-Lite and the complete package will be a good bit heavier than the Super-Lite package. We have a client who has both and he has reported to us that the Super-Lite is noticeably stiffer when working. I have yet to examine the package myself but I'm very interested in the design of their top connector section as this is one of the parts that we have design patent protected so at some point I will purchase one for comparison and legality purposes.

While you're on about the weight of your poles alex, what do you say about the weight of your Supermax 44ft pole. Like where on earth does the 2.7kg come from?

A mate of mine has one, and I went over to his place for a try out. Good pole, but we very carefully weighed it on 2 differenct scales, and it is actually 3.9KG?

« **Reply #34 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:54:13 pm »

Quote from: drwindows on October 13, 2009, 09:51:15 pm

Quote
They are no lighter than the Super-Lite and the complete package will be a good bit heavier than the Super-Lite package. We have a client who has both and he has reported to us that the Super-Lite is noticeably stiffer when working. I have yet to examine the package myself but I'm very interested in the design of their top connector section as this is one of the parts that we have design patent protected so at some point I will purchase one for comparison and legality purposes.

While you're on about the weight of your poles alex, what do you say about the weight of your Supermax 44ft pole. Like where on earth does the 2.7kg come from?

A mate of mine has one, and I went over to his place for a try out. Good pole, but we very carefully weighed it on 2 differenct scales, and it is actually 3.9KG?

The weights quoted on the website are for the 'dry' bare pole with no brush, gooseneck or hose (as stated on the website). Obviously there will be a margin for error depending on exact calibration of scales used.

« **Reply #35 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:31:08 am »

Quote

The weights quoted on the website are for the 'dry' bare pole with no brush, gooseneck or hose (as stated on the website). Obviously there will be a margin for error depending on exact calibration of scales used.

Well thats really useful because i often use a pole with no gooseneck, brush and hose - NOT!

And you say "as stated on the website" but I am on the supermax page right now and I don't see anywhere it saying that the weights are without hose, brush and gooseneck.

No offense but this sort of thing gets right on my wick. Its totally misleading! No reasonable person would, from looking at that page, conclude that the weight was for the pole without those bits on.

Sort it out.

« **Reply #36 on:** October 14, 2009, 10:59:55 am »

Quote from: drwindows on October 14, 2009, 09:31:08 am

Quote
The weights quoted on the website are for the 'dry' bare pole with no brush, gooseneck or hose (as stated on the website). Obviously there will be a margin for error depending on exact calibration of scales used.

Well thats really useful because i often use a pole with no gooseneck, brush and hose - NOT!

And you say "as stated on the website" but I am on the supermax page right now and I don't see anywhere it saying that the weights are without hose, brush and gooseneck.

No offense but this sort of thing gets right on my wick. Its totally misleading! No reasonable person would, from looking at that page, conclude that the weight was for the pole without those bits on.

Sort it out.

I hope you forgot to put 'please' after that. Alex will take a look when he gets back from work this afternoon.

Mrs A

Update: I've just spoken to Alex on the phone. He said the website has always only given weights of bare poles (see Product and Pole Comparisons on website). I have amended the web pages for the Super-Max and SL-X to include the phrase 'Weights given are for bare pole'.

« **Reply #37 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:24:15 am »

Sorry, but I just don't think that is adequate.

Products and pole comparisons are one thing, but a buyer may or may not happen to look at that. And what exactly does "bare pole" mean anyway? Thats a phrase you have just made up, i've never heard it before. Yet again dodging the issue I think, why not just say "weights quoted are without hose, brush and gooseneck"? The obvious reason is that anybody who saw that would think "well what use is that then" whereas if they dont know what "bare pole" means then they can be happily mislead.

But even now that it is on the page, i think you are missing the point.

Do you know anyone who uses a pole without the brush attached? Or without the hose? Of course not.

It would be like a car manufacturer giving the specifications of the car "without steering wheel" or "without engine" or something like that.

IMO the only reason a supplier would quote the weight of something without essential parts attached (and then not make it all that clear) is so that they can make it appear lighter than it actually is.

Why not just put the REAL weight on, rather than try to mislead?

You could simply have the three different weights for the three different goosenecks. Surely it can't be that difficult?

Sorry to rant, but this is one thing that really gets on my wick.

« **Reply #38 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:28:14 am »

Sorry you feel that way. Happily we haven't had any other complaints but I'll leave Alex to answer you when he gets home.

Mrs A

« **Reply #39 on:** October 14, 2009, 12:26:06 pm »

I think you've lost a customer there Mrs A

DR
surely if you are going to be spending the kind of money that a pole costs, you would do the comparisons.

all companies put the best light on their product. using the car comparison, if they sold a car claiming 100 miles per gallon, but you put the family and baggage in and get 50. do you complain because the figure they gave was for a car with a 8 stone driver and nothing else. common sense must be used.

also, 3.9kg was that with, or with out water in the hose? I find that figure misleading

« **Reply #40 on:** October 14, 2009, 12:31:19 pm »

Quote

also, 3.9kg was that with, or with out water in the hose? I find that figure misleading

without! Otherwise we'd have gotten water on his missuss kitchen floor and she'd have batted me

Seriously though, i do hate to rant because for me its not what the forums about.

Quote

do you complain because the figure they gave was for a car with a 8 stone driver and nothing else. common sense must be used.

Although its at the bottom end of the scale, at least that would be possible. It ISNT possible to use a pole with no brush, gooseneck or hose in it. Its not about putting your products in the best light, its about straightforward honesty, nothing more, nothing less.

« **Reply #41 on:** October 14, 2009, 12:39:06 pm »

gardeners are the most honest co ther is

« **Reply #42 on:** October 14, 2009, 12:47:07 pm »

I know a few honest ones

« **Reply #43 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:07:13 pm »

Maybe you would like the weight quoted with a Vikan sill brush and gooseneck attatched to the end?
Forty odd feet of tubing won't weigh the same as a feather either.

« **Reply #44 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:18:30 pm »

Quote from: drwindows on October 14, 2009, 11:24:15 am

Sorry, but I just don't think that is adequate.

Products and pole comparisons are one thing, but a buyer may or may not happen to look at that. And what exactly does "bare pole" mean anyway? Thats a phrase you have just made up, i've never heard it before. Yet again dodging the issue I think, why not just say "weights quoted are without hose, brush and gooseneck"? The obvious reason is that anybody who saw that would think "well what use is that then" whereas if they dont know what "bare pole" means then they can be happily mislead.

But even now that it is on the page, i think you are missing the point.

Do you know anyone who uses a pole without the brush attached? Or without the hose? Of course not.

It would be like a car manufacturer giving the specifications of the car "without steering wheel" or "without engine" or something like that.

IMO the only reason a supplier would quote the weight of something without essential parts attached (and then not make it all that clear) is so that they can make it appear lighter than it actually is.

Why not just put the REAL weight on, rather than try to mislead?

You could simply have the three different weights for the three different goosenecks. Surely it can't be that difficult?

Sorry to rant, but this is one thing that really gets on my wick.

I'm glad to see you acknowledging this as a rant

From the outset of selling poles we have to tried to provide a level of clarity that was not present in the industry at the time. We have always quoted pole weights (whether our brands or competitors) as bare poles. Why? Because this is the only way of getting an accurate comparison of products. Brush/Gooseneck combos can weigh from 320g to 900g depending on the manufacturer or model. 'Approximate' weights are always quoted because particularly on larger poles the weight can vary by up to +/-200g depending the exact tolerances of the carbon sections as they come from the factory.

I do apologise for the oversight of not having this mentioned on the Super-Max page. It had previously been on a section in the SL-X and Super-Max pages, but this had been removed when trying to make the layout simpler. It was an error that it was not included, which is why I confidently referred to it as 'on the website' - It is now back on the website.

With regard to the phrase 'bare pole' it is a fairly common phrase and I would have thought readily understood by a majority of people. If I made it up then I made it up about 5 years ago. Other retailers now also use this phrase in this industry. I apologise though if you feel that this is a misleading phrase.

Fortunately for you I do not think that you are one of our clients so hopefully the situation has not impacted your work performance. If your friend feels that he has been mislead when purchasing this item then please get him to ring the Office or email me directly and I will arrange for the return of his pole and a full refund.

Even with this textual oversight they are still the lightest most compact telescopic WFP range in the world.

« **Reply #45 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:39:20 pm »

Alex, i still think you're missing the point, I already said its a good pole, quite possibly the best one at that size thats out there. All I'm saying is that if I don't know what "bare pole" means, then likely other people wouldnt either. Especially if they're new to window cleaning.

So, if your intention really isn't to mislead, then in the interests of clarity,

Instead of

"Weights given are for bare pole."

Why don't you just put

"Weights given do not include brush, gooseneck or hose"

That's all I'm saying.

« **Reply #46 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:49:22 pm »

Quote from: drwindows on October 14, 2009, 03:39:20 pm

Alex, i still think you're missing the point, I already said its a good pole, quite possibly the best one at that size thats out there. All I'm saying is that if I don't know what "bare pole" means, then likely other people wouldnt either. Especially if they're new to window cleaning.

So, if your intention really isn't to mislead, then in the interests of clarity,

Instead of

"Weights given are for bare pole."

Why don't you just put

"Weights given do not include brush, gooseneck or hose"

That's all I'm saying.

Originally the phrase 'Bare pole' was used to keep the word count down on product listings - trying to make the website as easy to use as possible.

I have now taken your point on board and after the weights have put the phrase:
(weights given are for bare pole - no brush, hose or gooseneck)

I have also put this after the weights on the X-Tel poles as well.

« **Reply #47 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:53:13 pm »

Quote

I have now taken your point on board and after the weights have put the phrase:
(weights given are for bare pole - no brush, hose or gooseneck)

I have also put this after the weights on the X-Tel poles as well.

Well I guess that it is true what they say about you, a true gent!

Again, I know it was a rant and I am sorry, but nothing personal, it annoys me so much when companys try and word things to mislead. I can see that probably wasnt your intention, and you've changed it now so fair play to you!

And just to add, the pole itself was good, i liked it and will no doubt be ordering one soon enough.

« **Reply #48 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:58:33 pm »

bare pole

lap dancing club

Suites you sir!

« **Reply #49 on:** October 14, 2009, 04:06:16 pm »

yes ther are other good cos out ther ,perhaps he shud have sad in is bethday sute

?

?/

« **Reply #50 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:40:28 pm »

Never bother with the spray for modular poles. Just put some electrical tape at the point where they are likely to stick together to prevent them jamming together. Always carry some marigold rubber gloves should they ever get stuck to get a really good grip to undo clockwise only.

« **Reply #51 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:52:37 pm »

Quote from: drwindows on October 14, 2009, 03:39:20 pm

Alex, i still think you're missing the point, I already said its a good pole, quite possibly the best one at that size thats out there. All I'm saying is that if I don't know what "bare pole" means, then likely other people wouldnt either. Especially if they're new to window cleaning.

So, if your intention really isn't to mislead, then in the interests of clarity,

Instead of

"Weights given are for bare pole."

Why don't you just put

"Weights given do not include brush, gooseneck or hose"

That's all I'm saying.

Well you must be the only adult window cleaner in this country that can't, after approx 0.5 of a second realise what "bare pole" means! Try night school.

« **Reply #52 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:55:13 pm »

You're right, macmac™. Its even clear for foreigners.

Explanation should be short as a shot. More time for the rest, then.

Unfortunately, no such kind of phrase in Russian and we have to explain with the long list of items. Heh

regards,

Vadim