Clean It Up

UK Window Cleaning Forum => Window Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: R W C™ on June 30, 2011, 07:31:08 pm

Title: wfp flex test
Post by: R W C™ on June 30, 2011, 07:31:08 pm
Thought id add this for these in the market for a new pole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiQ5Q4LmLB4&feature=related
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: landy2 on June 30, 2011, 07:39:40 pm
good info there  RWC
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Erithwc on June 30, 2011, 07:41:18 pm
very good vid the clx looks crap next to the slx pole will have to treat my self to a slx this year i think  ;D ;D  
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: GB Window Cleaning on June 30, 2011, 08:04:52 pm
wfp porn  :P
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Ross G on June 30, 2011, 08:19:11 pm
Stiffy time :o
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Jackal on June 30, 2011, 08:52:32 pm
very good vid the clx looks crap next to the slx pole will have to treat my self to a slx this year i think  ;D ;D  

ditto,it did look pants compared to most of them
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: GB Window Cleaning on June 30, 2011, 09:23:21 pm
whats that white stuff in my y fronts ???
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: elite mike on June 30, 2011, 09:25:10 pm
whats that white stuff in my y fronts ???

 ;D ;D dread to think   :o ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Lee GLS on June 30, 2011, 09:30:12 pm
That vid makes the grafter look better than the clx  :o
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Gardiner on June 30, 2011, 09:39:28 pm
That vid makes the grafter look better than the clx  :o

I always enjoy these type of videos.  It is worth noting that the CL-X used was a 27ft (actual length) which was significantly longer than either of the standard Grafters (actual 14ft and 21ft) hence the greater bow to the pole.  Whilst the CL-X27 is one of our most popular poles the smaller versions will appear far more rigid due to shorter sections and extended length and as can be seen the Super-Max (or SL-X as they insist on calling them in the US) is in another class.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: R W C™ on June 30, 2011, 10:07:19 pm
That vid makes the grafter look better than the clx  :o

I always enjoy these type of videos.  It is worth noting that the CL-X used was a 27ft (actual length) which was significantly longer than either of the standard Grafters (actual 14ft and 21ft) hence the greater bow to the pole.  Whilst the CL-X27 is one of our most popular poles the smaller versions will appear far more rigid due to shorter sections and extended length and as can be seen the Super-Max (or SL-X as they insist on calling them in the US) is in another class.

I found this as someone I know has just ordered a grafter pole so thought id look on youtube and this popped up, If they had included a shorter clx it would of made for better results, Ive got 4 slx and 1 clx and have told people that if they are on a budget or employe the clx is the pole to get otherwise spend the extra on a slx, with the clx I dont pull each section right out as then less flex, Think the smax looked miles better then any of the other poles even fully extended, The bloke has also done a clx/slx comparision video too.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: stevekennedy on June 30, 2011, 11:06:14 pm
The weight of the brush also makes a huge difference in these test but much less effect when the pole is leaned against a window.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Nick Wareham on June 30, 2011, 11:22:48 pm
good video

I would have liked to know what pole it was near the camera that was 30 feet and nice and stiff.  He just said "an entry level high modulus pole" lol, where was it from?

It would have been interesting to see how some of the more expensive poles did, like ionics swift and glyders.

Quote
That vid makes the grafter look better than the clx  Shocked

I noticed that too
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: R W C™ on June 30, 2011, 11:56:28 pm
That vid makes the grafter look better than the clx  :o

The grafter is about 8 foot shorter so the flex would be closer if they used the same length poles
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Lee GLS on July 01, 2011, 08:18:46 am
That vid makes the grafter look better than the clx  :o

The grafter is about 8 foot shorter so the flex would be closer if they used the same length poles

The 32ft grafter plus, which is the direct comparison of the clx does look a lot stiffer though on the vid  :-X
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Gardiner on July 01, 2011, 08:39:26 am
That vid makes the grafter look better than the clx  :o

The grafter is about 8 foot shorter so the flex would be closer if they used the same length poles

The 32ft grafter plus, which is the direct comparison of the clx does look a lot stiffer though on the vid  :-X

Price wise the 'direct comparison'  to the Grafter+ range is the SL-X range. The C-LX range is nearly half the price of the Grafter+ range (Grafter+32(8.63m - £299.95) v CLX27 (8.1m - £150))
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Allen on July 01, 2011, 10:50:42 am
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know of any other company
that responds with so much waffle everytime this happens
the entire grafter pole's had far less bow
so whichever grafter pole you use
its going to be better than the cl-x pole
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Perfect Windows on July 01, 2011, 11:00:48 am
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know of any other company
that responds with so much waffle everytime this happens
the entire grafter pole's had far less bow
so whichever grafter pole you use
its going to be better than the cl-x pole

Wow, Alex, it's so out of character for you to be anti-Gardiners.  Are you feeling well?

Vin
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: SherwoodCleaningSe on July 01, 2011, 11:13:47 am
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know of any other company
that responds with so much waffle everytime this happens
the entire grafter pole's had far less bow
so whichever grafter pole you use
its going to be better than the cl-x pole

And what pole did the test show to be the best (most rigid) regardless of price?
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: [GQC] Tim on July 01, 2011, 11:14:17 am
I love these tests too, I think we need more of them. J.Racenstein do some nice videos on products, some product videos are usually nothing fancy, but it's far better then looking at a picture in a catalogue. These vids are great though. (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/smilies/yepp.gif)
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Gardiner on July 01, 2011, 12:52:14 pm
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know of any other company
that responds with so much waffle everytime this happens
the entire grafter pole's had far less bow
so whichever grafter pole you use
its going to be better than the cl-x pole

Hello my dear old 'namesake'  :)

These tests are informative and as previously said I always enjoy these videos. However comparing a 27ft pole fully extended against 14ft or 22ft pole is not a true' side by side' comparison - this is not an 'excuse' just a fact. I would hope that a Grafter+ was stiffer than a CL-X as it is from a price bracket above the CL-X. What would be really good to see is the Grafter24 (6.44m) side by side with the CLX22 (6.37m) and see what they both looked like - this would be a real side-by-side flex comparison.

I was very pleased to note the performance of the Super-Max40 compared to everything else, although again it was not an accurate side-by-side comparison to the other poles as it was about 9ft longer than any of the others.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Perfect Windows on July 01, 2011, 01:10:14 pm
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

By the way, all this from someone who complained that on the new Gardiners sill brush "the splay is way over the top, half of it wont touch the window".  Sill brushes are often like that.  Give his opinions the weight they deserve given that comment.

Vin
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Lee Pryor on July 01, 2011, 02:25:32 pm
Alex g is right

its a good test but the only way to compare in this way is if they are all the same length or just about, and if they all have the same brush. simple.

Personaly when considering a pole I look at

price
closed length
stiffness
clamps
handle diameter
weight

with all these things considered Gardiners make the best poles fact - no other company IMO comes close. Yes there are good poles out there, but there not as good as Gardiners and thats why I only buy from them.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: ♠Winp®oClean♠ on July 01, 2011, 05:06:44 pm
Alex g is right

its a good test but the only way to compare in this way is if they are all the same length or just about, and if they all have the same brush. simple.

Personaly when considering a pole I look at

price
closed length
stiffness
clamps
handle diameter
weight

with all these things considered Gardiners make the best poles fact - no other company IMO comes close. Yes there are good poles out there, but there not as good as Gardiners and thats why I only buy from them.

I agree ;D

However, Alex. who is actually Richard (owner of tecbuk) & also used to post as Ewan is fooling no one here! ;D ;D

Oh, & he's quite boring too, a bit, monotone lets say! ;D
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Allen on July 01, 2011, 05:08:28 pm
i think you need a holiday
or a least a short break
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Allen on July 01, 2011, 05:12:00 pm
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know of any other company
that responds with so much waffle everytime this happens
the entire grafter pole's had far less bow
so whichever grafter pole you use
its going to be better than the cl-x pole

Hello my dear old 'namesake'  :)

These tests are informative and as previously said I always enjoy these videos. However comparing a 27ft pole fully extended against 14ft or 22ft pole is not a true' side by side' comparison - this is not an 'excuse' just a fact. I would hope that a Grafter+ was stiffer than a CL-X as it is from a price bracket above the CL-X. What would be really good to see is the Grafter24 (6.44m) side by side with the CLX22 (6.37m) and see what they both looked like - this would be a real side-by-side flex comparison.

I was very pleased to note the performance of the Super-Max40 compared to everything else, although again it was not an accurate side-by-side comparison to the other poles as it was about 9ft longer than any of the others.



alex all the poles were side by side in a box
it showed the different levels of bend from a range of poles
the cl-x bent the most (not including the old fibre glass pole)
regardless of price or length
some cost more others less
poles were both longer and shorter than the cl-x


Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: andyM on July 01, 2011, 05:20:20 pm
Any fool can see the test is fatally flawed.
It's ridiculous to compare the flex of poles when they are not all the same length.
Oh and im surprised you did not seize the opportunity to post another blatant link for you book Alex!  ::)
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Gardiner on July 01, 2011, 05:27:43 pm
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know of any other company
that responds with so much waffle everytime this happens
the entire grafter pole's had far less bow
so whichever grafter pole you use
its going to be better than the cl-x pole

Hello my dear old 'namesake'  :)

These tests are informative and as previously said I always enjoy these videos. However comparing a 27ft pole fully extended against 14ft or 22ft pole is not a true' side by side' comparison - this is not an 'excuse' just a fact. I would hope that a Grafter+ was stiffer than a CL-X as it is from a price bracket above the CL-X. What would be really good to see is the Grafter24 (6.44m) side by side with the CLX22 (6.37m) and see what they both looked like - this would be a real side-by-side flex comparison.

I was very pleased to note the performance of the Super-Max40 compared to everything else, although again it was not an accurate side-by-side comparison to the other poles as it was about 9ft longer than any of the others.



alex all the poles were side by side in a box
it showed the different levels of bend from a range of poles
the cl-x bent the most (not including the old fibre glass pole)
regardless of price or length
some cost more others less
poles were both longer and shorter than the cl-x


Hi Alex.

I think that we are talking around the same point here. To get an accurate assessment of the video data, we need to apply filters. All of the poles that were significantly shorter than the 27ft CL-X should be discounted as they cannot be compared unless they are the same length - this means the Grafter14ft, Grafter21ft, Grafter+21ft need to be left out.

The only Grafter we can compare (from the video) is the Grafter+29ft which is indeed stiffer than the 27ft CL-X - as said previously though it really should be stiffer as it is nearly twice the price (£300 v £150) and is in the price bracket of full carbon poles that are a comfortable margin stiffer (as can be seen on the video).

I really love videos like these and wish I had more time to do a set myself. About 4 years ago I published a whole series of charts showing rigidity factors of all the poles on the market at the time. Unfortunately it is now very out of date as most are no longer sold. I did carry out a similar photo test myself today to show a client the difference in rigidity between a Super-Max50 and an Xtreme48 - great fun.  :)

Interestingly the 'old fibre glass pole' you mention from the video is not an 'old' fibre glass pole, but a brand new fibre glass pole from one of our competitors!
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: SherwoodCleaningSe on July 01, 2011, 05:34:24 pm
its a flex test, nothing to do with price
not including the old fibreglass pole that touched the ground
it shows clearly the cl-x is the worst pole
You always jump in with excuses or want a retest
if the outcome doesnt favour your equipment
in reviews (aerial brush), pictures (elite pole) and pole videos
I dont know of any other company
that responds with so much waffle everytime this happens
the entire grafter pole's had far less bow
so whichever grafter pole you use
its going to be better than the cl-x pole

Hello my dear old 'namesake'  :)

These tests are informative and as previously said I always enjoy these videos. However comparing a 27ft pole fully extended against 14ft or 22ft pole is not a true' side by side' comparison - this is not an 'excuse' just a fact. I would hope that a Grafter+ was stiffer than a CL-X as it is from a price bracket above the CL-X. What would be really good to see is the Grafter24 (6.44m) side by side with the CLX22 (6.37m) and see what they both looked like - this would be a real side-by-side flex comparison.

I was very pleased to note the performance of the Super-Max40 compared to everything else, although again it was not an accurate side-by-side comparison to the other poles as it was about 9ft longer than any of the others.



alex all the poles were side by side in a box
it showed the different levels of bend from a range of poles
the cl-x bent the most (not including the old fibre glass pole)
regardless of price or length
some cost more others less
poles were both longer and shorter than the cl-x


Hi Alex.

I think that we are talking around the same point here. To get an accurate assessment of the video data, we need to apply filters. All of the poles that were significantly shorter than the 27ft CL-X should be discounted as they cannot be compared unless they are the same length - this means the Grafter14ft, Grafter21ft, Grafter+21ft need to be left out.

The only Grafter we can compare (from the video) is the Grafter+29ft which is indeed stiffer than the 27ft CL-X - as said previously though it really should be stiffer as it is nearly twice the price (£300 v £150) and is in the price bracket of full carbon poles that are a comfortable margin stiffer (as can be seen on the video).

I really love videos like these and wish I had more time to do a set myself. About 4 years ago I published a whole series of charts showing rigidity factors of all the poles on the market at the time. Unfortunately it is now very out of date as most are no longer sold. I did carry out a similar photo test myself today to show a client the difference in rigidity between a Super-Max50 and an Xtreme48 - great fun.  :)

Interestingly the 'old fibre glass pole' you mention from the video is not an 'old' fibre glass pole, but a brand new fibre glass pole from one of our competitors!

I'd love to see that picture do post please Alex.

Simon.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Gardiner on July 01, 2011, 08:03:26 pm

I'd love to see that picture do post please Alex.

Simon.

Hi Simon

I do not think that I would be 'allowed' to post the photo. However I have used the email on your profile and I have sent you a copy of the photo and a link to a video of the two poles side-by-side.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Frankybadboy on July 01, 2011, 08:29:38 pm
i think you need a holiday
or a least a short break
ithink you ae really the one who needs a break,good paded cell will be good for you.i book it staight away.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: luther1 on July 01, 2011, 08:39:44 pm
Alex(G), i have a supermax 47 and an 46 sl2, will the 46ish xtreme make these two obsolete? I want the speed of extending the telescopic but with the rigidity of the modular,so,in essence,is the xtreme as or more rigid than the equivilent length modular? Regards Jamie
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Gardiner on July 01, 2011, 08:53:10 pm
Alex(G), i have a supermax 47 and an 46 sl2, will the 46ish xtreme make these two obsolete? I want the speed of extending the telescopic but with the rigidity of the modular,so,in essence,is the xtreme as or more rigid than the equivilent length modular? Regards Jamie

Hi Luther1

I previously had a very similar set-up to you in the van for high-level work, a Super-Max45 and an SL2 46 - then I got the first Xtreme48. Within a day I realised that I would never need the others again and a week later took them out of the van and put them in storage.

The Xtreme is virtually the same rigidity as the SL2 but so much faster to use - in my opinion. If you want any more details drop me an email alex@agardiner.co.uk  and we can discuss off-forum.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: luther1 on July 01, 2011, 09:10:26 pm
Thanks  :)
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: SherwoodCleaningSe on July 01, 2011, 09:29:58 pm
Just thought I'd post the picture and video that Alex G sent me. As I have nothing to do with Gardiner poles other than being a customer, I hope that I don't get into trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1epdeRD08Iw

Simon.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Dave Willis on July 01, 2011, 09:35:49 pm
So.... are some sections fully adjustable in length?
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Alex Gardiner on July 01, 2011, 09:43:37 pm
So.... are some sections fully adjustable in length?

On the Xtreme48 the top 7 sections are adjustable either fully open or fully closed. The base section then works as an 'incremental adjuster' allowing for the pole to be adjusted to any exact length. This helps combine the best of both worlds - lightweight modular with fast telescopic. The Xtreme25 has the top 3 sections that are either fully opened or fully shut and then the 4/5th base sections have a halfway adjuster for basic incremental adjustment (new feature - previous Xtreme25 clients will be offered a free upgrade soon). The Xtreme18 has only fully open or fully shut sections as the sections are a lot smaller. All of the them can then have extensions fitted. After the first extension is fitted to the 48 all subsequent ones are clamped modular extensions. I will be doing a video of this in detail, but have been so busy that I have just not had the time.
Title: Re: wfp flex test
Post by: Dave Willis on July 01, 2011, 10:04:50 pm
Thanks Alex, that would help. I understand the thinner sections/ fatter ends but am a little lost on the other sections.