2.5 Hose..finally

[Rex Tyus]

Any one that can't "feel" the difference their wand makes under different conditions and environments should NOT be on the business end of a wand any way. Anyone that does this for a living knows it.

 

[Guest]

Forum rules

MIKEYSBOARD.COM LLC will not be held responsible for any damage to equipment, voided warranties and or injuries as a result of advice taken from this website or its members.

That is there to protect ME, not my mods.


And you know it.

I will not be responsible when a numbnut such as yourself installs his Kunkle backwards or when his rusted out galvy pipe and goop gets sucked into the blower.

seems like a few guys have taken advice and had problems . Maybe thats the real reason behind the disclaimer , although Im sure having it does protect you form getting held responsible.

Saying 2.5 hose isn't better than 2" hose because of the feel that you have at the wand from the incresed suction causing the wand to be harder to push is like saying there is no difference between 150 ft of hose vs 50 ft of all 2" hose just because it feels like the wand is pulling harder at the carpet......


And as EVERYONE knows the less sections of hose you run, the better your dry times will be and the harder the wand pulls at the carpet.


It's quite a simple concept but I guess some people feel you have to put a scientific number to everything to make it worth buying.

Or just because you can do something cheaper yourself makes it so that it's not worth buying too.


Greenie has always been up front about things. He tells me not to worry too much about 2.5 on my cds because of the way it's plumbed and how the fast the blower is spinning. Not all TM's are created equal and some have much better results than others. I'd listen to greenie way before I listen to someone who has ties to and listens to someone with mental problems....especially without doing their own tests to prove that what the others are saying is wrong.


Also BTW CFM doesn't indicate how much vacuum you have. CFM multiplies by LIFT. 300 cfm at 15hg is a lot different than 400 cfm at 15hg.

you may get the same CFM at the end of an open hose with 2.5 vs 2. But being at lower lift meaning you have more efficiently transfered your lift to the end of the hose makes a difference. But most don't and also refuse to understand that concept.

what makes 2.5 an acceptable upgrade ? 10 minutes better dry times ?? An hour.

I will test and record the numbers - Hopefully I get 20 - 30 minute drying times like has been reported here . Its a shame someone hasnt already done drying tests , maybe they just didnt " feel " like it.

" Feel the Thump - its all that matters "

 

[Dolly Llama]

Coop, testing "numbers" don't mean much in the real world of "practical" application, as evidenced by the porty shoot out.

I've never ran 4-2-the door, so I can't comment on it.

I do have a 50ft section of 2.5 on the reel.
Since 89.3% of our hose runs are under 100ft, I see no need for more than one 50ft for "us" because of the PITA factor of bulkiness.
(but i do surmise running 4-2-dr would be a bigger PITA)
any runs 75ft or less is 2" for us.
Anything over 75ft, the 2.5 comes out and we drop a 25ft section of 2"

I don't have any rOcKeT sCiEncE numbers, but as Rex and others have pointed out, there's a difference in the sound of the wand with 100ft of 2" compared to 50-50 of 2.5 and 2" .
(45 blower, 14hg, 3100 RPM)

Maybe that "sound" doesn't equate to "real world practical" sol recovery, but I suspect it does.
case in point, I don't need hi-tech gadgets to know when we've run into a soap spill or sCampooer maintained carpets to know I've lost airflow thru the hoses.
I can tell by sound and feel

I'll be curious to see the numbers, but with out solution recovery numbers, they just won't mean much to me.


..L.T.A.

 

[Guest]

Coop, testing "numbers" don't mean much in the real world of "practical" application, as evidenced by the porty shoot out.

I've never ran 4-2-the door, so I can't comment on it.

I do have a 50ft section of 2.5 on the reel.
Since 89.3% of our hose runs are under 100ft, I see no need for more than one 50ft for "us" because of the PITA factor of bulkiness.
(but i do surmise running 4-2-dr would be a bigger PITA)
any runs 75ft or less is 2" for us.
Anything over 75ft, the 2.5 comes out and we drop a 25ft section of 2"

I don't have any rOcKeT sCiEncE numbers, but as Rex and others have pointed out, there's a difference in the sound of the wand with 100ft of 2" compared to 50-50 of 2.5 and 2" .
(45 blower, 14hg, 3100 RPM)

Maybe that "sound" doesn't equate to "real world practical" sol recovery, but I suspect it does.
case in point, I don't need hi-tech gadgets to know when we've run into a soap spill or sCampooer maintained carpets to know I've lost airflow thru the hoses.
I can tell by sound and feel

I'll be curious to see the numbers, but with out solution recovery numbers, they just won't mean much to me.


..L.T.A.

Dry times should tell the tale , dont you think ??

 

[Curtis Pennington]

Increased vac increases dry time..duh

 

[Mikey P]

Are you going to do the testing on with your worn out Vortex or your worn out Butler?

 

[Rex Tyus]

So do your test Coop, and THEN you can post an INFORMED comparison. THEN we can debate differences. Until then you are just .....Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, ............

I think the reason you and the wannabee manufacturer gurus haven't posted contrary results is for a couple of reasons.

1. You don't know HOW to do a test that might discredit the reduced restriction.

2. If you did know how you wouldn't know what the numbers meant. Plain and simple.

I would like to point out that it wasn't long ago the debate was that there was no improvement over 2" to justify the PITA of doing 4 to the door. Now it has shifted away from that as it was a mistake to 4 to the door vsa 2.5".

Surely I am not the only one to notice this?

As far as dry time testing goes, please explain to us "SCIENTIFICALLY" how you are going to account for the differences in humidity and airflow within the cleaned structure. I mean you are a scientist and all and you would not want to taint you results with such an obvious issue.

 

[Mikey P]

and the real question.


Would you tamper with the results or scew the testing to make Nick look good?


Personally, seeing how you hang out with proven liars, would not put it past you.

 

[Rex Tyus]

and the real question.


Would you tamper with the results or scew the testing to make Nick look good?


Personally, seeing how you hang out with proven liars, would not put it past you.

I don't think he or any of the contrarians grasp the concept enough to falsify any results. :shock:

 

[Guest]

So do your test Coop, and THEN you can post an INFORMED comparison. THEN we can debate differences. Until then you are just .....Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, ............

I think the reason you and the wannabee manufacturer gurus haven't posted contrary results is for a couple of reasons.

1. You don't know HOW to do a test that might discredit the reduced restriction.

2. If you did know how you wouldn't know what the numbers meant. Plain and simple.

I would like to point out that it wasn't long ago the debate was that there was no improvement over 2" to justify the PITA of doing 4 to the door. Now it has shifted away from that as it was a mistake to 4 to the door vsa 2.5".

Surely I am not the only one to notice this?

As far as dry time testing goes, please explain to us "SCIENTIFICALLY" how you are going to account for the differences in humidity and airflow within the cleaned structure. I mean you are a scientist and all and you would not want to taint you results with such an obvious issue.

Thats funny , your challenging me for not having numbers to compare . Thats kinda always been the one making the claims of performance to deliver , dont ya think ?? What it boils down to is I am going to do the testing for Greenie .

I see so many folks saying they get 30 minute dry times , etc. Im not even looking for that - I just want to see the 2.5 drying at a quicker rate than 4 to the door to justify the use.

Pretty simple tests will be performed and spelled out after they are done.

 

[Greenie]

Coop...you are as thick as they come, on your old hydraulic vortex with stock 2" plumbing, I don't think you'll see 2.5 dry any different than 4 to the door, of course I never claimed it would either.

But, the first time you want to take advantage of your vacuum on a 150-200' hose run (where you need it the most, not cleaning trailers in GA), you would have to run 100' x 2 of your 2" hose and 100' x 1 to make the 200', this would be necessary to gain the vacuum advantage of a single section of 100' of 2.5. So you are now running 300' of hose to cover 200' of run, that is the DEFINITION of PITA, and it is the #1 reason guys pile the 2.5 on their reel, CONVIENIENCE.

If you are an 85' average hose guy, do as you see fit, it's not even in the same ball park as my 200' guys, totally different animal. My average customer has 100' of the 2.5 on the truck, I have dozens of customers with this, and probably just as many who opt for a single section of 2.5 cause they do teh Capitoni and bang out 100' jobs and STILL like the convienience of pulling one hose, and wrapping one hose and still having incredible vacuum from their #3 and #4 blowers.
I also have a handfull of customers who have loaded their whole hose reel with 2.5 (some are 300') and just carry a single 25' whip of 2" cause it puts their truck 300' closer to the wand, the longer the hose run, the GREATER the need for 2.5.

It's not going away, TM Mfgs. are now making their tanks with 2.5 ports STOCK from the factory, while you were dreaming and sleeping, they were paying attention, they are also using Bayco and Kunkle valves STANDARD, they cost 4X more, why would they use them if they didn't offer competitive advantage?

Liek I said, I am sure glad Mikey has you here, with a 1000 customers reading here daily, I need one opposing view to give me a reason to talk about these things once a week.

 

[Guest]

Coop...you are as thick as they come, on your old hydraulic vortex with stock 2" plumbing, I don't think you'll see 2.5 dry any different than 4 to the door, of course I never claimed it would either.

But, the first time you want to take advantage of your vacuum on a 150-200' hose run (where you need it the most, not cleaning trailers in GA), you would have to run 100' x 2 of your 2" hose and 100' x 1 to make the 200', this would be necessary to gain the vacuum advantage of a single section of 100' of 2.5. So you are now running 300' of hose to cover 200' of run, that is the DEFINITION of PITA, and it is the #1 reason guys pile the 2.5 on their reel, CONVIENIENCE.

If you are an 85' average hose guy, do as you see fit, it's not even in the same ball park as my 200' guys, totally different animal. My average customer has 100' of the 2.5 on the truck, I have dozens of customers with this, and probably just as many who opt for a single section of 2.5 cause they do teh Capitoni and bang out 100' jobs and STILL like the convienience of pulling one hose, and wrapping one hose and still having incredible vacuum from their #3 and #4 blowers.
I also have a handfull of customers who have loaded their whole hose reel with 2.5 (some are 300') and just carry a single 25' whip of 2" cause it puts their truck 300' closer to the wand, the longer the hose run, the GREATER the need for 2.5.

It's not going away, TM Mfgs. are now making their tanks with 2.5 ports STOCK from the factory, while you were dreaming and sleeping, they were paying attention, they are also using Bayco and Kunkle valves STANDARD, they cost 4X more, why would they use them if they didn't offer competitive advantage?

Liek I said, I am sure glad Mikey has you here, with a 1000 customers reading here daily, I need one opposing view to give me a reason to talk about these things once a week.

Most folks do average 100 - 150 off the truck , it isnt often your going further than that .

My trucks and equipment work fine thanks , I have yet to see the disclaimer from you saying you wont get a high performance with some tms.

I think mikey keeps me here because he thinks you have gone soft and have been taking shortcuts instead of getting off your duff and doing the real work , which is showing us it really works instead of coming up with innane catch phrases like " the thump " . Shit like that is how folks get nick names ( like Thumper or Arizona pussy )

 

[Greenie]

You do realize the "thump" isn't one of mine...right?

But the Lump is, I hereby name you The Lump.

btw: if you want to unleash the power of your 68 blower on that ol' dog, pick up one of my Vanifolds (Mikey's coined name for my 5 port vacuum splitter), or better yet get some PVC and make your own super dual 2.5 port manifold, this will allow you to really make use of the larger 2.5 hose, until then, you'll always be wonderin...

 

[Guest]

You do realize the "thump" isn't one of mine...right?

But the Lump is, I hereby name you The Lump.

btw: if you want to unleash the power of your 68 blower on that ol' dog, pick up one of my Vanifolds (Mikey's coined name for my 5 port vacuum splitter), or better yet get some PVC and make your own super dual 2.5 port manifold, this will allow you to really make use of the larger 2.5 hose, until then, you'll always be wonderin...

Is that on your website ?

 

[Royal Man]

I get the feeling that some on this board just like to stir it up for their own entertainment.

 

[Rex Tyus]

Thats funny , your challenging me for not having numbers to compare . Thats kinda always been the one making the claims of performance to deliver , dont ya think ?? What it boils down to is I am going to do the testing for Greenie .

I see so many folks saying they get 30 minute dry times , etc. Im not even looking for that - I just want to see the 2.5 drying at a quicker rate than 4 to the door to justify the use.

Pretty simple tests will be performed and spelled out after they are done.

I will take that as an affirmation you have NO idea how or what test to do. Or what numbers would even be significant.
And that you and the guru manufacturer wannabees have shifted the debate from 2 vs 42td to 42td vs 2.5" Nobody is fooled. But by ALL means huddle with your buddies and TRY to think of some way to discredit the improvement EVERYONE that has made the conversion realizes. Also debunk the trend with manufacturers moving to larger plumbing and 2.5" ports STANDARD.

Furthermore if you are running a V or even a Butler (especially a Butler) with standard 2" hose it is easy to see why "THUMP" is out of your vocabulary and understanding. Cause YOU DON'T HAVE IT. :shock:

Just curious do you still run a 1.5" lead with a 1.5" wand?

 

[Rex Tyus]

I get the feeling that some on this board just like to stir it up for their own entertainment.

It is a rainy afternoon in Marianna. :mrgreen:

 

[Greenie]

i don't own that site, it belongs to Lisa, but it's not even clsoe to updated, and never will be, let me find you a pic so you know what to make.

 

[Guest]

[quote="James Cooper":14ug5ki4] Thats funny , your challenging me for not having numbers to compare . Thats kinda always been the one making the claims of performance to deliver , dont ya think ?? What it boils down to is I am going to do the testing for Greenie .

I see so many folks saying they get 30 minute dry times , etc. Im not even looking for that - I just want to see the 2.5 drying at a quicker rate than 4 to the door to justify the use.

Pretty simple tests will be performed and spelled out after they are done.

I will take that as an affirmation you have NO idea how or what test to do. Or what numbers would even be significant.
And that you and the guru manufacturer wannabees have shifted the debate from 2 vs 42td to 42td vs 2.5" Nobody is fooled. But by ALL means huddle with your buddies and TRY to think of some way to discredit the improvement EVERYONE that has made the conversion realizes. Also debunk the trend with manufacturers moving to larger plumbing and 2.5" ports STANDARD.

Furthermore if you are running a V or even a Butler (especially a Butler) with standard 2" hose it is easy to see why "THUMP" is out of your vocabulary and understanding. Cause YOU DON'T HAVE IT. :shock:

Just curious do you still run a 1.5" lead with a 1.5" wand?[/quote:14ug5ki4]

only when I have to take a piss and dont want my nuts sucked into the hose

 

[Dolly Llama]

Dry times should tell the tale , dont you think ??

Yes... *IF* you do a couple/three side by sides, on the *same* carpet, in the *same* room on the *same* day in exactly the *same* way as humanly possible to complete dry.
That should give a good indicator.

as far as dry times, it's always been my contention that 97.935% of the dudes that claim "dry in an hour or less" are FOS anyway.
Cause what they're calling "dry", is still in fact "damp" carpet
Hell, some carpets we clean, like poly/olie would be called "dry" by many of these moon pies 30 SECONDS after our wand ran over it

I DO know we're recovering more solution though.
I can't pin point it to one thing or the other , cause I made several mods/changes when I bought the 2.5 hose.
IE..2.5" clean sweep Greenie vac port elbow (that I mounted to the waste tank lid) and larger opening pool filter along w/2.5 hose

In the aggregate, those mods made a very noticeable difference in recovery as evidenced by our need to drain the waste tank more often now.
matter of fact, those mods prompted me to finally install a pump out


Back to your tests.
When....not "if" you find there's very little different in "complete" dry time between 2.5" and 4-2-dr,
(cause I'll bet $20 right now there will be little difference in "complete" dry times)
we can then move on to the debate of which is a bigger PITA.
IE..setting up and tearing down 150 ft of 2" for a 85ft to 100ft run (ASSuming one 50ft 2" whip)
Or setting up and tearing down 100ft of hose. (50-50 2.5/2")

Time is money..
and i won't even mention the rainy/muddy run days and cleaning an extra 50ft required before wrapping up....


..L.T.A.

 

[Curtis Pennington]

James have you heard ANYBODY COMPLAIN ABOUt THERE 2.5 PURCHASE????...LMAO....nope.


Dont you think after a hundred purchases there would be a problem...if there was?


Give up bro ..I can see the wand debate you have but your making yourself loooooook more and more like a #$#@%&.

and Im being nice....fer now.


nevermind STFU.

 

[harryhides]

Most folks do average 100 - 150 off the truck , it isnt often your going further than that .

Can you give us the test protocols and test results to back up this statement or is it just based on a James "feeling" ?

 

[harryhides]

These same manufacturers you are accusing of improperly engineering their machines do years of R & D to create a machine that will with stand the every day grind associated with carpet cleaning.

You "know" this - how?
Where is the documentation ? Judging by some of the tm's made over the years, I'd contest that "feeling" of yours there, James.
You're trying to tell us that all of those truck-mounts with dumbassed internal plumbing did "years of R & D" ?
And just how many of those engineers ever laid a hand on a wand, do you suppose ?

You do know that when Dupont came out with Stainmaster Dye Blockers that they had not bothered to test the effects of an alkaline pre-spray on the product.
Years of R & D my ass - you nincompoop !!

 

[Able 1]

Why would I pull out 5 vac lines for a 150' run? 2 2" vac hoses are around $160.00 what dose the 2.5 cost? Won't 4 2" vac hoses take up more space in my van then 2 2.5?

I think my van is set up as good as it gets and I did so because I like to take my time on the carpet NOT setting up my hoses and breaking them down...

 

[Guest]

James,quit the drama,you heard it was a preference thing,now move on to something that annoys Mikey.

 

[Dolly Llama]

now move on to something that annoys Mikey.

:shock:



:mrgreen: :mrgreen:


..L.T.A.

 

[Guest]

James,quit the drama,you heard it was a preference thing,now move on to something that annoys Mikey.

I have no problem with what folks choose to use , whatever . But if I choose to conduct tests to determine what really works and what doesnt , whats the problem ??

Tony , you of all people - you really need to worry about your own testing protocol seeing as for at least 2 Mikey Fests you couldnt deliver the goods. But who counting .

All testing will be outlined when I post the results . I have 2.5 on the way.

BTW Tony , hows the hostile takeover going ???

 

[Duane Oxley]

(I posted this on ICS and think it's relevant here, so here's a cut and paste for you...)

They (2.5", vs. 2 @ 2") should be about the same on a given truck, IMO.

The difference to consider is convenience of one vs. the other. And it seems, from listening to various people that the definition of "convenience" itself is a variable.

Some people see having to have a bulkier, stiffer 2.5" hose, that always has to be located in the same place related to the truck regardless of hose run as less convenient.

Other people see having two parallel hoses as inconvenient.

BFD.. Whatever floats your boat is up to you, ultimately.

If you run the numbers (diameter divided by 2, multiplied by itself, multiplied by 3.14), you'll find that a 2.5" hose (at just under 5 sq. in.) is almost twice as much area as a 2" hose (at 3.14"). And two, 2" hoses (about 6.28") have more area than a 2.5".

None of it matters that much if your system isn't plumbed in at least 2.5".

But here's where it gets away from the obvious: The vast, VAST majority of HX systems today have what amount to built- in "orifices"- places in the plumbing in which the diameter of the inlet to the blower is reduced. (That's in order to strain the blower, make it work hard, which strains the motor under a more or less constant load, and cause both to generate more heat.)

So, even if your system is plumbed at 2.5", your ability to fully take advantage of 2.5" vacuum hose is limited.

Where larger diameter hose comes into play is by offering less resistance to the airflow moving through it, requiring less "work" to pull the air through. In this case, "work" is synonymous with "lift", which there is a limited amount of to "work with".

My advice is to try running parallel 2" hose and if it gets you excited, then try 2.5". (As I said you'll need to be sure that your blower- to- tank connection is at least 2.5" to see a benefit. And your tank will need to have two, 2" ports to connect to... Or a filter box with two of them.)

If you like it, use it. It's pretty simple, really.

But if you're a purist from an airflow standpoint, it's pretty obvious to see that two in parallel provides less resistance than a single 2.5".

Will you see a difference between the two...? I personally doubt it. (Two 2" hoses are larger than a 2.5". So the 2.5" that the system is plumbed with becomes, in effect, an "orifice".) But you'll need to be able to do an A / B comparison to see for yourself.

Will you see a difference between a single 2" and the other two options mentioned above? Yes, if your system is plumbed to allow the airflow to take advantage of it AND the blower is large enough and turning fast enough.

My take on it is simple: Most hose runs are 150 feet or less. Yet most people have 200 feet or more of hose on their truck. So, they already have the hose necessary to do a parallel 2" hose run for that first 50 to 100 feet. So why not just get a 2" plumbing Wye from Lowes, Home Depot, etc. and save the expense of yet another hose on your truck?

Somebody needs to do an actual measured study of A/B on the same machines on the same jobs, etc. several times and settle the hoopla once and for all.

I'm surprised that no one thought to do it at the recent fest...

 

[Bill Soukoreff]

Is their a minimum amount of CFM that would be needed to run either combo?

On a small blower could it actually reduce performance?

 

[Duane Oxley]

Is their a minimum amount of CFM that would be needed to run either combo?

On a small blower could it actually reduce performance?

I don't know about a minimum CFM figure at this point.

But, "Yes", on a smaller blower, through 2" system plumbing, it would act as an "accordion", for lack of a better term. The result would be a delayed response when the wand interacts with the carpet, much like having a huge recovery tank and an under- sized blower for it...