Interested In Advertising? | Contact Us Here
Warning!

 

Welcome to Clean It Up; the UK`s largest cleaning forum with over 34,000 members

 

Please login or register to post and reply to topics.      

 

Forgot your password? Click here

Alex Gardiner

  • Posts: 7744
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #20 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.

Perfect Windows

  • Posts: 4309
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #21 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

Lee Pryor

  • Posts: 2287
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #22 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.
The best way to predict the future is to create it.

♠Winp®oClean♠

  • Posts: 4085
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #23 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

Alex Allen

Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2011, 05:08:28 pm »
i think you need a holiday
or a least a short break

Alex Allen

Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #25 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



andyM

  • Posts: 6100
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #26 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!  ::)
One of the Plebs

Alex Gardiner

  • Posts: 7744
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #27 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!

SherwoodCleaningSe

  • Posts: 2368
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #28 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.

Alex Gardiner

  • Posts: 7744
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #29 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.

Frankybadboy

  • Posts: 9024
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #30 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.

luther1

  • Posts: 1071
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #31 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

Alex Gardiner

  • Posts: 7744
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #32 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.

luther1

  • Posts: 1071
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2011, 09:10:26 pm »
Thanks  :)

SherwoodCleaningSe

  • Posts: 2368
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #34 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.

Dave Willis

Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2011, 09:35:49 pm »
So.... are some sections fully adjustable in length?

Alex Gardiner

  • Posts: 7744
Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #36 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.

Dave Willis

Re: wfp flex test
« Reply #37 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.