Clean It Up

UK Floor Cleaning Forum => Carpet Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: AshWhite on March 12, 2012, 07:38:35 pm

Title: Bonnet Pads
Post by: AshWhite on March 12, 2012, 07:38:35 pm: For the guys who are using rotary machines regularly for domestic & commercials:

What pads do you find best for cleaning results, and/or longevity?

Based on a mix of light/medium/heavy soiling and a mix of carpet types.

I'm looking for specific pads, as I want to order a few different types to find the best one for my use.

Thanks in advance :)
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Jim_77 on March 12, 2012, 08:13:28 pm: I think the synthetic (polyester?) pads are a very good all-rounder. As well as absorbing soil pretty well they pull out lots of little bits of hair, fluff etc which helps a lot in the bits like foot shuffle patches where even vacuuming doesn't get it up. Good enough on commercials too.

I Have a couple of microfibre ones and think they're shyte on low profile tiles, they just skim over them rather than get into them, however they are great on wool. Used one today just to agitate an oriental rug before extracting... almost looked finished after the bonnet!
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: AshWhite on March 12, 2012, 08:43:13 pm: Thank you, as always Jim.

Anyone else want to throw in their 2c worth?
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: jim mca on March 12, 2012, 08:47:34 pm: I like the restormate pads heavy duty on low profile

Jim
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Billy Russell on March 12, 2012, 08:52:01 pm: Quote from: jim mca on March 12, 2012, 08:47:34 pm
I like the restormate pads heavy duty on low profile

Jim

I'd go with that!!! I tried the microfibre ones as well and i don't agree with Jim, there not shyte!!!!! There bloody worse than that!!! i got a couple, you can have them if you want!!! i'll bring them down when i pick that other stuff up in a week or so!!
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: AshWhite on March 12, 2012, 09:02:26 pm: Quote from: Billy Russell on March 12, 2012, 08:52:01 pm
Quote from: jim mca on March 12, 2012, 08:47:34 pm
I like the restormate pads heavy duty on low profile

Jim

I'd go with that!!! I tried the microfibre ones as well and i don't agree with Jim, there not shyte!!!!! There bloody worse than that!!! i got a couple, you can have them if you want!!! i'll bring them down when i pick that other stuff up in a week or so!!

Deal ;)
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Neil Williams on March 12, 2012, 09:04:33 pm: I swear by the texatherm (TCS) ones that seem to work well across the various spectrums of carpet types as opposed to the stupidly over priced charlie pads which were shyte shyte shyte on everything.
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Shaun_Ashmore on March 12, 2012, 09:16:29 pm: Neil is right on the money albeit I like the Dry Fusion ones (virtually the same) I've had mine for approx 10 years they still look good and work well.

Shaun
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: AshWhite on March 12, 2012, 09:17:48 pm: Am I right in thinking that the Charly pads were only available from 'He who must not be named'? Are they the 'Super scrub pads'?
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Shaun_Ashmore on March 12, 2012, 09:41:18 pm: Just like c'talk can't be mentioned here the same happens that cleanitup can't be over there, I believe Nick does his own pads if memory service me right they are man made so non absorbant 2 pads can clean a very long way but they are a different animal to queen bonnets which I prefer.

Shaun
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Mike Halliday on March 12, 2012, 09:46:49 pm: cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantal
kcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantal
kcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk

cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk

cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk

cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk

cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk
cleantalkcleantalkcleantalkcleantalk

cleantalk errrr....... yes it can
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Mike Halliday on March 12, 2012, 09:53:02 pm: oopps.... sorry billy deleted your post by accendent :'( :'( :'(

say again !!!

ps: www.cleantalk.co.uk
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Billy Russell on March 12, 2012, 10:03:44 pm: You did it on purpose really!!!!

i know your type!!!

;D ;D
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Shaun_Ashmore on March 12, 2012, 10:24:29 pm: What do I know :o

Shaun
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: AshWhite on March 13, 2012, 02:34:27 am: Anyone tried the soil-sorb bonnets?
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Ian Gourlay on March 13, 2012, 05:09:29 am: Actually this has always got my gote . Jim Neil who is a moderator on Cleantalk gets away with saying things on here we would have no chance of saying on Cleantalk ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: clinton on March 13, 2012, 07:56:55 am: The pads i use are my old texatherm pads and also the dry fusion pads and find as long as you give them a good wash and dry them they keep in good nick..

Cleantalk ;D
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Russ Chadd on March 13, 2012, 09:20:33 am: For what its worth...
I purchased some MF pads from a seller on eBay, these were thick and very absorbent great for soil extraction but not much use for agitation.
Nick sent me an XR pad which i have used once and found it good...
I also have some green MF bonnets which are not very thick, they have agitation strips through them and these are also very good.

Give us a shout Ash and we can chat

Russ
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Steve Rothwell on March 13, 2012, 09:52:56 am: (http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1331632304_wot e sed.gif)

I agree with wot e says...

The MF pads from ebay remove loads of crud. Also the thinner ones with the agitation stripe are good too.
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: derek west on March 13, 2012, 10:08:48 am: threads like this make you realise that theres more to bonneting than a quick vac, spray and bonnet. makes me laugh when there is no un biased training for this procedure of cleaning at all in this country, from different types of bonnets, machines, chems, etc... theres a good day if not 2 day course in this method alone, which a lot of us could benefit from, me included.
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: AshWhite on March 13, 2012, 10:14:19 am: I was just thinking, so - MF Bonnets are alright, but crap, but also great. Except for agitation, unless you get the ones for agitation in which case they're good. :o

I've used MF pads and not been massively impressed, but I can't say I've done enough with them to give them a fair trial - I haven't tried the agitation strips yet, and I haven't tried any of the queen bonnet type - so I've got a bit of a shopping list. I've got a feeling that it's going to be like all things carpet cleaning, ie there is no one size fits all, and it depends on machine, carpet, method of cleaning, soiling etc etc...
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: fenman on March 13, 2012, 10:37:57 am: Try the green scrub pads from www.killiskleaners.co.uk

These are great for agitation and cleaning mingers and good price.
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: Jamie Pearson on March 13, 2012, 11:21:19 am: It is all relative to the spec of machine and the product you are using and what you need to do.

Lighter the machine the more aggressive the pad.

Encap products only need agitation where bonnet cleaners need absorbing.

Then there are floor bonnets but that would confuse things even further.
Title: Re: Bonnet Pads
Post by: AshWhite on March 13, 2012, 11:41:37 am: Quote from: CleaningSystemsUK on March 13, 2012, 11:21:19 am
It is all relative to the spec of machine and the product you are using and what you need to do.

Lighter the machine the more aggressive the pad.

Encap products only need agitation where bonnet cleaners need absorbing.

Then there are floor bonnets but that would confuse things even further.

Jamie, am I correct in thinking that for encap a synthetic fibre (polyester) would be better, and for shampooing natural fibres (cotton) would be better?