Aparently an unglided wand performs better than a glided wand

**Ara Klujian** · 07-02-2009, 03:45 AM

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmiGgxS8LDg"]YouTube - No Glide Testing Results[/ame]

It was a whopping 1/2 gallon more. The guy thats doing things that nobody else does is me!

**M Ellis** · 07-02-2009, 04:26 AM

Ok
I can see where this thread could go after the putting the smackdown on glides thread.
There are those who swear by glides and those that hate them.
No amount of name calling or personal attacks will change one side to the other.
By all mean post likes or dislikes but any personal attacks or slanging matches will be edited.
Everyone has the same right to their beliefs so keep that in mind before you get all heated up.

Mick

**Mr. Slide** · 07-02-2009, 04:35 AM

Roight Then!
Remember, easier is not always better!

Cheers, AL

**wandwizard** · 07-02-2009, 05:35 AM

I have no real feelings towards the glide or no glide issue. I never even heard of the issue before TMF. I have always used a no glided wand since I started. I never even tried a glided wand until I got the Bentley with the yellow Banana glide and I really didn't like it. It left a massive amount of moisture behind. It was replaced with an internal glide which did not push or pull near as easy, but recovery was markedly better, especially on shorter naps and berbers. From my limited experience with glides it is clear that all glides are not created equal. I would suspect if you did a recovery test using several different wands and different glides on each and compare to no glide that some of the glides would perform admirably and some would not do a good job of recovery. I am for anything that makes the job easier as long as effectiveness is not diminished. As for me, I'm back to using my old 2 jetter w/o a glide. Because it only weighs in at 7 an a half pounds it is very easy to use, but must be lifted up between strokes on some carpets. However, on the majority of carpets it will move quite easily on both the back and forward strokes and I get excellent recovery. I'm sure there must be some glides that simply work better than others and as long as they don't hinder recovery too much I can see where they would be beneficial. Isn't the whole point of the glide to make things easier in this back breaking job? At the same time though it must not hinder the wand from doing the thing it was designed to do which is the recovery of the solution so the carpets are left clean and so they dry as fast a possible. Any glide that does hinder recovery more than a slight percentage should be either redesigned or scrapped. Recovery and ease of use should be the major points of any good glide. Failure on either of these points is a failure of the glide,period. The yellow glide I mentioned earlier excelled on the ease of use part, due in part to it's very large size, but failed miserably on the recovery part. The other internal glide, which was much smaller than the other one, excelled on the recovery part, but failed miserably on the ease of use part, but at least it is usable and the other one is not imho.

**SDSinc** · 07-02-2009, 10:11 AM

I would never clean without a glide for one and only reason, my lower back is shot. More recovery? Less recovery? Who cares? Use Airpaths like me and it is a mute point, But your back will feel better, thats for sure!

**Matt Strader** · 07-02-2009, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Slide

Roight Then!
Remember, easier is not always better!

Cheers, AL

One of your selling points is that the glide makes it easier to clean. Sounds like you might be contradicting yourself.

Ara, I don't understand the video. Is there more to it than the 14 seconds.

**Scrubbs** · 07-02-2009, 04:40 PM

Ara, impressive results, a bit surprising though. I have to admit, when I have to use my porty, I go glideless. However, when using the tm, there's no way I could not use the glide. Even with the glide, the 59 locks the wand to the floor.
If I haven't said it already, sorry I had to miss the cookout. It looks like you all had a good time. Also, thanks to Nick for setting this all up.

Mark

**Ara Klujian** · 07-02-2009, 07:12 PM

Matt, thats all we got was the results. I'm sorry you weren't able to see my wand technique. We were all so tired at that point the 105* Texas heat was starting to wear us all out. Matt's flip was acting funny and turned itself off a few times.

Mark, I am not surprised at what you are saying about your TM and not being able to push all day. TM's with higher lift like 14 and above are difficult to push. In those cases a wand glide or slide may be practical. I myself like using 12 or 13 hg non glided. Use what you like my friend. The only thing this test proves is that no matter what your lift is non glided will recover more water with the right tech pushing the wand.

And for the record I know there are people out there that clean like me. Matt Weddle is one of them. The technique I used at Nicks I mostly use on flood jobs and certain instances where dry times is of the utmost importance. As of right now I am 1-0 against any type of wand attachments. I'm calling out the slide right now to put a permanent end to claims that it pulls MORE than a naked wand. It aggravates me so much. OK OK your slide or glide can pull out water. But don't sit there and say its better than a naked wand when it is NOT. My 1/2 gallon more proves that it isn't. If there is a manufacture out there that wants to test my recovering abilities against the slide or glide, I'm Your Huckleberry!

**Matt Strader** · 07-02-2009, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Ara Klujian

Matt, thats all we got was the results. I'm sorry you weren't able to see my wand technique. We were all so tired at that point the 105* Texas heat was starting to wear us all out. Matt's flip was acting funny and turned itself off a few times.

I bet it was operator error

**Scrubbs** · 07-02-2009, 07:30 PM

Ara you look more like a strawberry!!!
Have a great and safe 4th bud

Mark

**Ara Klujian** · 07-02-2009, 09:09 PM

Thanks Bud! You too

**Richard Baldwin** · 07-02-2009, 09:13 PM

All we can do is try different techniques and draw our own conclusions. That's how we learn and improve. What works for one may not work as well for another.

**C Spot Stop** · 07-02-2009, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Baldwin

All we can do is try different techniques and draw our own conclusions. That's how we learn and improve. What works for one may not work as well for another.

I appreciate this statement and what must be the thinking behind it. and, to some degree, I concur.

So. with respect, I offer the following opposite view;

'Conclusions' can be wrong. I need accurate data to draw a real conclusion. so there must be some science one way or the other.

I have read many times while in many colleges that we tend to prove what we believe rather than believing what we prove.

Cleaning anything has a major element of science to it as well as a large dose of subjective interpretation. We KNOW what acids do and we KNOW what alkalines do. I am not at liberty to draw conclusions about these subjects IF I am a 'pro'. (not that this is what anyone is suggesting)

I think a glide user may very well prove the opposite is true with recovery. I may be wrong.

The issue should not be about OUR preferred method, it should be about the end result.

so, we need science....not theory..to make a conclusion. It seems none is avail as of todays date.

Outside of that, why is it important one way or the other? I like my glide...but I am new, green and still ignorant on most subjects surrounding CC'ing. But I aint stupid. If the carpet stays much too wet for much too long with/without a glide, we really need to know.

I simply want to be the best (in my price range

) inside my market. Knowledge will make the difference.

**Richard Baldwin** · 07-02-2009, 09:35 PM

Very deep and thought provoking Phil!

I've been on the lookout for a measurable test of soil content and soil removal to determine which presprays, techniques and equipment can truly have the best results, but so far have seen no such test.

Water content can be measured, but then there is the factor of who is pulling the wand? Why is my tech trainee unable to make the cushion come clean, then I take the tool, do the exact same thing as he just did, and the stains come out.... why?

Why do some techs on this board swear by Ultrapac and meanwhile I cant get it to remove even the simplest of heavy soiling? Yet almost anything else I try works fine? Why?

There are strange and unexplainable forces at work in the cleaning world which we will never truly understand, only the shadow knows for sure.

**Scrubbs** · 07-02-2009, 10:08 PM

Philip, you are very right. Now with that in mind and your statements above.....
Do the tests for yourself, on your own equipment, in your own home, at the same time; For it is my belief that after doing all the above you will be able to reach what you say..."I simply want to be the best (in my price range ) inside my market. Knowledge will make the difference. "

Seriously, I read a mess of stuff on the 4-2 door and 2 1/2. I've also read a bunch on glides, slides, and lips. The only way I can honestly give an opinion is by first trying them on my exact setup.
Without getting into too many specifics, my results were....imo....wand WAY to difficult to move without a glide and 4-2 door only dried carpet 5-10 minutes faster. To me, I'll stick with my 2" all the way out.

**C Spot Stop** · 07-02-2009, 10:17 PM

I like the thinking behind both of your recent posts. I also liked the Shadow.

Is it possible that we tend to use what we THINK is better and, that affects the outcome?

confidence makes ALL the difference many times over.

It is hard for me to have it when the forum, at large, seems to have total and complete opposite view points on this (and many) subject(s).

Do we vary this much on using heat or psi or vacuum? No, not this much.

Odd.

**C Spot Stop** · 07-02-2009, 10:20 PM

Scrubbs, how funny that it never ocurred to me to try it for myself.

I will admit this though; I put the glide on and did the thing...and put my hand down...(no, my hand is not calibrated for any real measurement

) I had no clue if it was wetter or not.

Now...you wanna go test some beers I have plenty of tools for that.

I have truly enjoyed this thread.
Ara, I appreciate your tine and effort for your work and thoughts on the matter.

**Ara Klujian** · 07-03-2009, 12:05 AM

Philip there is a science behind it all and our test prove that this is not just theory. Our testing proved that lift was more responsible for removing water from the carpet than airflow. As I stated before airflow is an important factor but the lift carries the major role. Once the water is inside the hose airflow is more responsible for carrying or sending water to the tank.

**C Spot Stop** · 07-03-2009, 01:04 AM

I get that part. I relate it to electricity. Volts. watts and amps.

What baffles me is not that there is a difference in opinion, but the difference is not a gray area.

More like a diametric bane. (some of you may have to look that up...and you know who you are)

**wandwizard** · 07-03-2009, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by C Spot Stop

I get that part. I relate it to electricity. Volts. watts and amps.

What baffles me is not that there is a difference in opinion, but the difference is not a gray area.

More like a diametric bane. (some of you may have to look that up...and you know who you are)

diametric bane: Opposite view points that lead to destruction or ruin.( This is what I conclude it is from the definitions of both words.)

Yeah I had to look it up, but I was familiar with both words.

I think what Ara is trying to do is end the diametric bane, but it will take more test with more glides as I indicated in my previous post. I've only used two glides in my life. One worked ok, but was hard to push and the other was easy to push, but had terrible recovery even with a truck mount at 13 hg. I'm pretty sure it is possible to create a glide that both does a great job of recovery AND glides easily. I don't think this diametric bane is going to be over anytime soon. Why, because there is money to be made by the producers of glides and there are many cleaners who are used to them and would not give them up for anything. By the way the testing that would be required to end the diametric bane would need samples of several different wands and glides used on at least a few different types of carpet. Just a thought. I don't think it's possible to put this baby, I mean diametric bane, to rest w/o more testing. Even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that an unglided wand recovered better than any wand with any type of glide the people who use them will likely continue doing so. As far as those who manufacture glides go, they should be strictly tested against an unglided wand as the gold standard for recovery. Ideally a glided wand should not reduce recovery at all, but we will all have to wait and see if that is even possible. I tend to think it is possible.