[john martin]

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXn5gL3AaBs


  Posted in another thread by TonyBrowning  ...  
  Figured i'd give it its own thread as Cleansmart have clearly gone to great effort making this video with perhaps independent  lab testing ?





 
  This is Ashbys original video ...  
  I think Ashbys credibility is now hovering around zero although i still like the Enforcer body design and series configuration may have its advantages under load .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Elgr0d8Qw

  

    

[AshWhite]

I like the 'lab technicians' combo of Adidas 3-stripes, and white lab coat.

[jim mca]

Well done Matt hope this can put a stop to suppliers misleading claims

[derek west]

would make a nice video session for the next TACCA day, lets do an independant test on all the top portables. wonder how many suppliers would be brave enough to let us test there machines against there competitors?, and while we are there we can settle mine and billys blowers once and for all

[AshWhite]

Why do you need the manufacturers permission? I'm sure there's enough members to make available one of each type of machine?

[derek west]

Why do you need the manufacturers permission? I'm sure there's enough members to make available one of each type of machine?

we don't need permission, but it would be interesting to see who would be confident enough to say "yes", and lend us a machine. i know mat would.

[JandS]

So what's the difference?
They both did the tests and came out with different figures.
Who's to know which set of figures are true.

John

[Tony Gill Carpet Smart]

The only way to get true results is from a totally independant test, manufactures always give results which favor their own products.

[Billy Russell]

To be fair to Matt, he did say he is more than happy to have his machine independently tested, fair play to him, will any of the others do that? not saying they won't just wondering

[john martin]

So what's the difference?
They both did the tests and came out with different figures.
Who's to know which set of figures are true.

Cleansmarts test results are what we expect based on the motor manufactures data for the motors used and the known configuration of the motors .
Ashbys figures on the other hand make no sense .

The Airflex Turbo has three 1400w Lamb motors in Parallel  ( about 100cfm and 137" lift each )
So allow perhaps up to 5% +/-  difference between individual motors and look at cleansmarts figures .
Three 100's is 300cfm ... and because u get the lift of one motor in parallel , 10 hg is equal to the 137" lift .
So the figures are exactly what you'd expect .


Cleansmart figures for the Enforcer are also what you'd predict ....
If they used two lamb motors in series you'd get 100cfm and 220" lift
because they use an Electro with 117cfm , boosted by a second weak motor , they get 17hg ( 230" lift and 117cfm )


I would like to see the Storm tested  , i'd say 280cfm and 9HG   ....
less than the Turbo   

[from edge2edge]

Hi Guys surely its all about trust as both machines really suck well(not too technical there boys) .I have just got a nearly new storm and spoke to Matt(cleansmart) who says he is happy to cover the warranty although its 2 months old when i bought it secondhand.In my book that makes him a guy i can trust and having read what other people say about him and his setup then its a no brainer as i really think the guy wants to give the best service possible.TOP MAN.........................Alan(swindon)

[Tony_C]

So what's the difference?
They both did the tests and came out with different figures.
Who's to know which set of figures are true.

John
[/quote

This is the email that Matt sent out. I know who I believe.



 
From: Cleansmart Ltd.
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:50 AM
To: Tony Clark
Subject: Airflex Turbo vs Ashbys Enforcer Vacuum Strength Test - The Real Results
 
 
Hi,
 
Matt here from Cleansmart.
 
A few weeks ago Ashbys Cleaning Equipment published a video on YouTube showing their Enforcer machine and our Airflex Turbo.
 
This video shows grossly incorrect data readings for both the Ashbys Enforcer and the Airflex Turbo machines and is therefore very misleading.
 
We have produced our own video to show the real figures for both machines (I'll provide a link to that in a moment).
 
We are also in the process of registering a complaint about Ashby's video with the Advertising Standards Authority. As part of that process I have written a letter to Ashbys which is reproduced below.
 
I don't like having to produce a video showing a competitors machine or having to send an email out like this. However the video Ashbys have produced is very convincing so I feel I must defend my machine and my business.
 
Here's the letter sent to Ashbys:
 
 
Dear Mr Ashby,
 
I am writing to you about a video Ashbys published recently on YouTube which compares airflow and waterlift on the Ashby's Enforcer machine and our own Airflex Turbo. This video shows grossly incorrect data readings for both the Ashbys Enforcer and the Airflex Turbo machines and is therefore very misleading.
 
We intend to register a complaint about this video with the Advertising Standards Authority. As part of the Advertising Standards Authority's complaints procedure, we are required to register our complaint with you first, which is the purpose of this letter.
 
Point 1
 
These are the airflow and water lift readings for both machines (the airflow has been checked using two different meters):
 
Ashbys Enforcer fitted with 1 x 3-stage motor and 1 x heavy duty 3-stage motor (Electro motors)
 
Airflow 117CFM
Mercury lift 17"
Airwatts 3179
 
Airflex Turbo fitted with 3 x 3-stage heavy duty vac motors (Lamb Ametek)
 
Airflow 305CFM
Mercury lift 10.25"
Airwatts 5023
 
The Airflex Turbo is therefore approximately 58% more powerful in terms of airwatts.
 
We are quite prepared to send both machines for independent testing to support our complaint if needs be.
 
Point 2
 
The Omega flowmeter you are using in the video is not suitable for measuring airflow under vacuum. We have contacted Omega, who have confirmed in writing that the meter is 'not suitable for use under vacuum'. Our Airflex Mini machine (which also has vac motors mounted in series) produces around 100CFM airflow, however when we tested the Omega flowmeter on this machine it gave a reading of 180CFM.
 
Point 3
 
The Airflex Turbo in your video appears to be leaking air, in need of repair or perhaps the gate valve is not fully closed: Both the waterlift and airflow figures you quote in the video are grossly incorrect.
 
Point 4
 
You describe both machines as being standard off-the-shelf models, but in reality you are testing what appears to be a brand new Enforcer machine against an Airflex Turbo that is over a year old. Even without the 3 very strong points above, that is hardly a fair test.
 
I request you remove this video from YouTube immediately and refrain from this kind of underhand and misleading behaviour in future. Ashbys has positioned itself as an expert on airflow and waterlift, so I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the correct performance figures for 'in series' and 'in paralell' vacuum configurations.
 
 
Cleansmart is a reputable company with a good reputation and I will not allow you to make misleading claims about our equipment in this way.
 
Your sincerely,
Matthew Flewitt   
Cleansmart Ltd.
 
 
Here's the link to the Ashby's video:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Elgr0d8Qw
 
Here's the link to the Cleansmart video in response:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXn5gL3AaBs
   
 
Again, I wish I'd not needed to produce this video or send this mail, but the Ashbys YouTube video could have a serious impact on my business if I do not respond to it, so I hope you don't mind me sending this.
 
If you support us, please show your support by commenting at the bottom of our YouTube video.
 
If you are in the market for a new machine my advise is to take any manufacturer's airflow figures with a pinch of salt! It's a sad reflection on this industry that there are several manufacturers quoting or implying hugely exaggerated machine performance claims at the moment. The best thing to do is to get demos on different machines, speak to people who own the machines and look at the reputation and back up service from the supplier.
 
I hope that's ok.
 
Many thanks,
Matt
 
Cleansmart Ltd.
 



 

[john martin]

So what's the difference?
They both did the tests and came out with different figures.
Who's to know which set of figures are true.

John
[/quote

This is the email that Matt sent out. I know who I believe.



 
From: Cleansmart Ltd.
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:50 AM
To: Tony Clark
Subject: Airflex Turbo vs Ashbys Enforcer Vacuum Strength Test - The Real Results
 
 
Hi,
 
Matt here from Cleansmart.
 
A few weeks ago Ashbys Cleaning Equipment published a video on YouTube showing their Enforcer machine and our Airflex Turbo.
 
This video shows grossly incorrect data readings for both the Ashbys Enforcer and the Airflex Turbo machines and is therefore very misleading.
 
We have produced our own video to show the real figures for both machines (I'll provide a link to that in a moment).
 
We are also in the process of registering a complaint about Ashby's video with the Advertising Standards Authority. As part of that process I have written a letter to Ashbys which is reproduced below.
 
I don't like having to produce a video showing a competitors machine or having to send an email out like this. However the video Ashbys have produced is very convincing so I feel I must defend my machine and my business.
 
Here's the letter sent to Ashbys:
 
 
Dear Mr Ashby,
 
I am writing to you about a video Ashbys published recently on YouTube which compares airflow and waterlift on the Ashby's Enforcer machine and our own Airflex Turbo. This video shows grossly incorrect data readings for both the Ashbys Enforcer and the Airflex Turbo machines and is therefore very misleading.
 
We intend to register a complaint about this video with the Advertising Standards Authority. As part of the Advertising Standards Authority's complaints procedure, we are required to register our complaint with you first, which is the purpose of this letter.
 
Point 1
 
These are the airflow and water lift readings for both machines (the airflow has been checked using two different meters):
 
Ashbys Enforcer fitted with 1 x 3-stage motor and 1 x heavy duty 3-stage motor (Electro motors)
 
Airflow 117CFM
Mercury lift 17"
Airwatts 3179
 
Airflex Turbo fitted with 3 x 3-stage heavy duty vac motors (Lamb Ametek)
 
Airflow 305CFM
Mercury lift 10.25"
Airwatts 5023
 
The Airflex Turbo is therefore approximately 58% more powerful in terms of airwatts.
 
We are quite prepared to send both machines for independent testing to support our complaint if needs be.
 
Point 2
 
The Omega flowmeter you are using in the video is not suitable for measuring airflow under vacuum. We have contacted Omega, who have confirmed in writing that the meter is 'not suitable for use under vacuum'. Our Airflex Mini machine (which also has vac motors mounted in series) produces around 100CFM airflow, however when we tested the Omega flowmeter on this machine it gave a reading of 180CFM.
 
Point 3
 
The Airflex Turbo in your video appears to be leaking air, in need of repair or perhaps the gate valve is not fully closed: Both the waterlift and airflow figures you quote in the video are grossly incorrect.
 
Point 4
 
You describe both machines as being standard off-the-shelf models, but in reality you are testing what appears to be a brand new Enforcer machine against an Airflex Turbo that is over a year old. Even without the 3 very strong points above, that is hardly a fair test.
 
I request you remove this video from YouTube immediately and refrain from this kind of underhand and misleading behaviour in future. Ashbys has positioned itself as an expert on airflow and waterlift, so I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the correct performance figures for 'in series' and 'in paralell' vacuum configurations.
 
 
Cleansmart is a reputable company with a good reputation and I will not allow you to make misleading claims about our equipment in this way.
 
Your sincerely,
Matthew Flewitt   
Cleansmart Ltd.
 
 
Here's the link to the Ashby's video:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Elgr0d8Qw
 
Here's the link to the Cleansmart video in response:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXn5gL3AaBs
   
 
Again, I wish I'd not needed to produce this video or send this mail, but the Ashbys YouTube video could have a serious impact on my business if I do not respond to it, so I hope you don't mind me sending this.
 
If you support us, please show your support by commenting at the bottom of our YouTube video.
 
If you are in the market for a new machine my advise is to take any manufacturer's airflow figures with a pinch of salt! It's a sad reflection on this industry that there are several manufacturers quoting or implying hugely exaggerated machine performance claims at the moment. The best thing to do is to get demos on different machines, speak to people who own the machines and look at the reputation and back up service from the supplier.
 
I hope that's ok.
 
Many thanks,
Matt
 
Cleansmart Ltd.
 

Interesting to read Cleansmart's  perspective , thanks .

I have read that about the omega flowmeter on the USA forums , you really need the digital Anemometer , but like he says its so convincing to see it in the video ,i found myself questioning what i knew i knew about cfm in series at times .
I think there is little chance Ashbys didn't know what they were doing . If its a genuine mistake they should take down all they're recent videos immediately .

Hopefully  the last paragraph is a dig at Solutions/CA and the gang  ... who have Mr Ed V who posted the jags performance figures for both series and parallel at the one time leading everyone to believe the Jag had twice the lift of other portables and the power of a truckmount when in fact it has less lift than most machines ...

.. and keeping up the tradition is Mr  N.V.W  who claims you can get 400cfm by simply twiddling with Jags internal hoses .

[derek west]

don't know the owner of ashbys but looks like he messed with the wrong guy. Dont think ive ever heard a bad word about mat, and therefore that totally rules out underhand marketing from him.

[Doug Holloway]

Hi Guys

Interesting from a technical point of view but I'm sure most CC's don't pay much notice to manufacturers claims.

The series/parallel deabte has been going on for years and we all have our preferences.

Personally I would buy either Alltec, Cleanmart or Ametech because I have had good delaings with or heard good things from people I respect.

I have always worked on the basis that the companies which make the least claims probably have the best equipment as it speaks for itself.

Cheers

Doug

[Phillip Mold]

Heres a challenge then..........

We have the NCCA and TACCA, I am a member of both. Why do we not ask all manufacturers to lend an off the shelf new machine to each to be tested by the trade association, with the results available to members for comparision? 

[Mike Halliday]

Suppliers will never play fair,  they will just move the goal post to suit them selves, prove a machine is less powerfull  than another and they will start saying that it's not about power but the quality of the customer service given, or powers not important if your machine is sat in the garage  broken , so it's about having a good stock of spare  parts on stock.

The trouble is they are speaking the truth, how important is raw power? If a machine will dry a carpet in 3hrs instead of 4 hrs does it really matter that much?

I would rather buy a machine that I can change a vac motor on the job in 15mins than buy a machine that is a little bit more powerful but if it breaks down I have to leave the job.

I've heard of truckmount owners who have been quoted 4 weeks for a part to come from the USA. If they had known this might they have bought a less powerfull machine but been happy the supplier has all the spare  parts sat in thier unit?

[Doug Holloway]

Hi Guys

I spoke with the NCCA some years ago on this subject and got the distict impression who has the best machine was a  can of worms they didn't want to open, after all the suppliers are associate members!

We just need to take any claims with a pinch of salt and this is where the get togethers really come into their own as we can speak freely to each other about our experiences.

Cheers

Doug

[james roffey]

When i did my NCCA course in 2008 i was told that the Alltec machine was the one to go for, i think they were biased in that direction and it had nothing to do with it being the best machine, i then made the worst mistake ever by buying a Ninja, quite good machine but  lousy customer service from Ashby's i developed a deep mistrust in them and sold that machine as soon as i could.
I was lucky enough to pick up a seconhand Airflex from a guy who only used the machine for seven hours, he decided it would be easy to clean carpets but told me he did not realise it would be so difficult to find customers  
All i can say was dealing with Mat at Cleansmart has removed the stress and worry i had before about my machine and the backup to keep it earning money for me, i believe the test thy carried out was done correctly and fairly, i think Ashby's as always have been shortsighted in releasing the utube video and it has now backfired on them

[Blacky]

Cleansmarts test was unfair. On the Ashbys test, it clearly shows the vac motor buttons been turned on, this was on both machines.

If you watch the Cleansmart test. The Airflex had all three motors turned on. He only turned on one motor on the Enforcer and did not angle the camera to show all buttons illuminated on the Enforcer.