It's the overall design that I really like. It's suction is a part of the equation but not the whole thing and that's probably where bias comes in I'm sure if all I was worried about was raw suction.
Too many machine comparisons die in the abyss of vac performance debates, where many other important factors cease to be considered.
You like the Jag because you find the design favorable to your operation, which is a perfect example of how important it is to consider the design of the machine as a whole, and not always hyper-focus on the performance specs.
Sure performance specs are very important, but the more experience you have, the more you will start to understand design benefits and limitations.
On the flip-side, I find the design of the Jag unfavorable to MY operation, in MY market.
This has nothing at all to do with the quality or performance of Ed's machines at all, it simply has to do with the dimensions, and footprint of his machines compared to "classic", "upright" designs.
For my densely populated urban market, it simply boils down to which machine design is easier to maneuver around, down streets, up lots of fooking stairs, down lots of fudgeing stairs, into tight fooking elevators, through tight fooking hallways, and to operate in often cramped units.
The "classic" designs are much better suited for this IMHO, and a machines maneuverability and foot-print are key considerations in such a market.
It's about so much more than performance specs, because trust me, I know enough to know I would love to run the sh!t out of one of Ed's machines.
It is one of the few portable units I would consider running live AF/APO on, and that's coming from a veteran who fooking hates APO units.
That's a HUGE advantage on bigger jobs, and something that has always been a limitation on classic designs IMHO.
My immediate residential market, which is my bread-n-butter, simply lacks the "sprawl" for such a design.
I wish that was not the case.