OK V/AT owners, be honest..

[Mikey P]

how often does this happen?

 

[Mikey P]

oh and there was this on Facebook today..


Attn: Vortex Owners/Friends/Fam: This three-year old, $7.5 million lawsuit may see some light today! The Arizona Court Of Appeals judges are meeting at 10:30 this morning! Here's the statement of case:

In the matter of SHAWN LORENZO YORK ("VORTEX") v. BLUE LINE EQUIPMENT, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; SAPPHIRE SCIENTIFIC, INC., an Arizona corporation; and SKAGIT NORTHWEST HOLDINGS, INC., a Washington corporation; The following PUBLIC STATEMENT OF CASE is issued for immediate release;

In 2005, BlueLine Equipment Company and Vortex Cleaning Systems (competitors in the industry of design, manufacturing and sales of industrial carpet cleaning machines) entered into negotiations for the sale of the Vortex Brand Name, Assets and Intellectual Property. BlueLine could not afford the full purchase price of Vortex, ($1.6M) so instead, the parties negotiated a substantially reduced price ($174k) in consideration for BlueLine's "Covenant To Manufacture And Market" two different models of Vortex Brand machines and the payment of "Perpetual Royalties" for these machines. This transaction was documented on May 11, 2006 in an Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA") which defines these two machines in ¶2.4.1 as; [bold emphasis added] "any configuration of any machine [-] which either incorporates the Intangible Assets [i.e. patents, or designs] or uses the Vortex Brand." (The word "or" is not subject to multiple interpretations.)

However, in 2009 BlueLine and Vortex were acquired by Skagit Northwest Holdings who discontinued Vortex-Brand machines asserting "patent obsolescence" and "design impracticability" pursuant to ¶2.4.5 which states; [bold emphasis added] "Buyer Covenants and agrees in good faith to use all reasonable efforts to market, promote, distribute and sell the Vortex Machines; provided that it is commercially reasonable for Buyer to continue to manufacture and market such Vortex machines; further provided that it shall be deemed per se commercially unreasonable to cease manufacturing, marketing or promoting the Vortex Machines solely to manufacture market and promote products similar to, or using technologies that compete with the Vortex Machines."

Mr. York filed this dispute with The American Arbitration Association in September of 2009, asserting that Skagit's determination to discontinue the Vortex Brand cleaning machines solely to promote cleaning machines under the new “Sapphire” Brand was in breach and resulted in an unjust enrichment -- and motioned for an interim ruling on APA ¶2.4 to establish whether there exists any requirement for the use of any patent or design for performance. The arbitrator initially granted this ruling during the final evidentiary hearings however, after the final hearings the arbitrator changed her mind and refused to issue this ruling 11 and instead, issued an arbitration award which denies Mr. York's damage claims due to "patent obsolescence" and "design impracticability".

In September of 2010, Mr. York filed opposition to this award with The Maricopa County Superior Court asserting that the arbitrator's determination exceeds her powers because it constitutes a knowing refusal to rule on a governing principle, establishing breach and requiring a materially different outcome. However, the Superior Court Judge ignored Arizona statute and legion arbitration case law and confirmed the award with no explanation. In September of 2011 the case was filed with The Arizona Court Of Appeals, Division One.

There exists solely one relevant and determinative question facing The Arizona Court Of Appeals; (This is the same question left unaddressed by both the arbitrator and the Maricopa County Superior Court Judge -- and the same question that will require review by The Arizona Supreme Court should the Court Of Appeals also choose not to address it.)

Q. Would the arbitration have resulted in a substantially and materially different outcome had the arbitrator not refused to issue Mr. York's motion for a ruling on the interpretation of APA ¶2.4?

https://sites.google.com/site/statementofcase/

 

[Jim Martin]

both your post came completely un-raveled......

 

[boazcan]

how often does this happen?

Not often enough. Generally speaking, the more hose that is off that reel then the more per hour we are making.

 

[KevinL]

So how much hose are you using there? How's your suck?

 

[Mikey P]

2650 sf of wtw wool, 3 staircases and some flagstone and pebble mosaic at this dump

 

[Mikey P]

375 and the new 6008 sucks like a mad man.

 

[Desk Jockey]

2650 sf of wtw wool, 3 staircases and some flagstone and pebble mosaic at this dump

:shock: WOW, 2-crews? That's a lot of work!

 

[Mikey P]

Just two of us busting our asses

 

[davendana]

Must have run a Living Social deal

 

[Mikey P]

yep, whole house special just $1895!

 

[Desk Jockey]

We had one last week at a 10,000 sq/ft home, 3500sq/ft carpet and 50-steps. The crew was there 8-hours and came back ass draging in. Noramally would have sent another crew but we were busy that day and "didn't have a square to spare".

 

[steve g]

oh and there was this on Facebook today..


Attn: Vortex Owners/Friends/Fam: This three-year old, $7.5 million lawsuit may see some light today! The Arizona Court Of Appeals judges are meeting at 10:30 this morning! Here's the statement of case:

In the matter of SHAWN LORENZO YORK ("VORTEX") v. BLUE LINE EQUIPMENT, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; SAPPHIRE SCIENTIFIC, INC., an Arizona corporation; and SKAGIT NORTHWEST HOLDINGS, INC., a Washington corporation; The following PUBLIC STATEMENT OF CASE is issued for immediate release;

In 2005, BlueLine Equipment Company and Vortex Cleaning Systems (competitors in the industry of design, manufacturing and sales of industrial carpet cleaning machines) entered into negotiations for the sale of the Vortex Brand Name, Assets and Intellectual Property. BlueLine could not afford the full purchase price of Vortex, ($1.6M) so instead, the parties negotiated a substantially reduced price ($174k) in consideration for BlueLine's "Covenant To Manufacture And Market" two different models of Vortex Brand machines and the payment of "Perpetual Royalties" for these machines. This transaction was documented on May 11, 2006 in an Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA") which defines these two machines in ¶2.4.1 as; [bold emphasis added] "any configuration of any machine [-] which either incorporates the Intangible Assets [i.e. patents, or designs] or uses the Vortex Brand." (The word "or" is not subject to multiple interpretations.)

However, in 2009 BlueLine and Vortex were acquired by Skagit Northwest Holdings who discontinued Vortex-Brand machines asserting "patent obsolescence" and "design impracticability" pursuant to ¶2.4.5 which states; [bold emphasis added] "Buyer Covenants and agrees in good faith to use all reasonable efforts to market, promote, distribute and sell the Vortex Machines; provided that it is commercially reasonable for Buyer to continue to manufacture and market such Vortex machines; further provided that it shall be deemed per se commercially unreasonable to cease manufacturing, marketing or promoting the Vortex Machines solely to manufacture market and promote products similar to, or using technologies that compete with the Vortex Machines."

Mr. York filed this dispute with The American Arbitration Association in September of 2009, asserting that Skagit's determination to discontinue the Vortex Brand cleaning machines solely to promote cleaning machines under the new “Sapphire” Brand was in breach and resulted in an unjust enrichment -- and motioned for an interim ruling on APA ¶2.4 to establish whether there exists any requirement for the use of any patent or design for performance. The arbitrator initially granted this ruling during the final evidentiary hearings however, after the final hearings the arbitrator changed her mind and refused to issue this ruling 11 and instead, issued an arbitration award which denies Mr. York's damage claims due to "patent obsolescence" and "design impracticability".

In September of 2010, Mr. York filed opposition to this award with The Maricopa County Superior Court asserting that the arbitrator's determination exceeds her powers because it constitutes a knowing refusal to rule on a governing principle, establishing breach and requiring a materially different outcome. However, the Superior Court Judge ignored Arizona statute and legion arbitration case law and confirmed the award with no explanation. In September of 2011 the case was filed with The Arizona Court Of Appeals, Division One.

There exists solely one relevant and determinative question facing The Arizona Court Of Appeals; (This is the same question left unaddressed by both the arbitrator and the Maricopa County Superior Court Judge -- and the same question that will require review by The Arizona Supreme Court should the Court Of Appeals also choose not to address it.)

Q. Would the arbitration have resulted in a substantially and materially different outcome had the arbitrator not refused to issue Mr. York's motion for a ruling on the interpretation of APA ¶2.4?

https://sites.google.com/site/statementofcase/

thats funny right there, I wish I could say what I know about sapphire and their tactics, but I can say after knowing it I am actually rooting for yorkie to win.

 

[Jimbo]

So is this a veiled thank you to the machine's creator??




That's nice of you, Mike.

 

[daniel@procarpet]

If diesel wasn't four dollars per gallon, I would buy an AT.

I want and need the high performance.

I just don't want to deal with the complicated maintenance and repairs.

 

[Lee Stockwell]

If diesel wasn't four dollars per gallon, I would buy an AT.

I want and need the high performance.

I just don't want to deal with the complicated maintenance and repairs.

The fuel economy about equals out, but you are correct the maintenance can be expensive on high milage trucks.

 

[BradFenstermaker]

I have never pulled every bit of hose off mine.

 

[daniel@procarpet]

He was probably dual wanding.

Damn I am so jealous. I want a machine like that.

 

[boazcan]

I've pulled all 700 ft about 10 times. 200 of 2" and the rest 2.5". I love having all the hose out of the truck. It is like a yellow brick road.

 

[steve frasier]

Damn I am so jealous. I want a machine like that.

Mine will be up for sale around the end of 2014, if I decide to retire from cleaning. And it won't be worn out.

If you are pulling dual wands and your service area is close, fuel economy is an after thought. Truck actually gets better mileage now then when it was new.

It use to take me over a tank of gas to drive to Yelm and back, can do it now with 2/3 of a tank

 

[hogjowl]

The first time I pulled all the hose off mine was only about two weeks after purchasing. I accidentally left the dump valve open and was running dual 200 ft. wands and still couldn't tell the dump valve was open until I came out into the parking lot a couple hours later and wondered why the parking lot under the V was all wet.

That's some kind of suction man ...

 

[daniel@procarpet]

The first time I pulled all the hose off mine was only about two weeks after purchasing. I accidentally left the dump valve open and was running dual 200 ft. wands and still couldn't tell the dump valve was open until I came out into the parking lot a couple hours later and wondered why the parking lot under the V was all wet.

That's some kind of suction man ...

Marty that is nothing special. The water in the tank creates the vacuum seal cuz I accidentally did the same thing.

Try doing this: Leave one of your ports open and your vacuum will be crap.

 

[bensurdi]

We did this yesterday, pouring rain, pain in the ass!

 

[Lee Stockwell]

The first time I pulled all the hose off mine was only about two weeks after purchasing. I accidentally left the dump valve open and was running dual 200 ft. wands and still couldn't tell the dump valve was open until I came out into the parking lot a couple hours later and wondered why the parking lot under the V was all wet.

That's some kind of suction man ...

Marty that is nothing special. The water in the tank creates the vacuum seal cuz I accidentally did the same thing.

Try doing this: Leave one of your ports open and your vacuum will be crap.

The water in the tank doesn't create a vacuum seal, though it may not flow as much air as an equal opening above the water line.

An open dump valve may cause massive foaming as the turbulance coming up thru the waste gets pretty active. Even a slow air leak below the water line will cause foaming.

 

[hogjowl]

I wasn't even going to respond to that DAP, but thanks Lee.

 

[Dolly Llama]

po Dan'l

Dan'l, which knot do you most often use?
Trilene?
Palomar?
Improved clinch?



figured I'd help you by asking something you might actually know WTF you're talking about

:shock: :mrgreen:


..L.T.A.

 

[steve frasier]

An open dump valve may cause massive foaming as the turbulance coming up thru the waste gets pretty active. Even a slow air leak below the water line will cause foaming.

that is correct

Try doing this: Leave one of your ports open and your vacuum will be crap.

@ 1700 rpm not with my V it won't

 

[Mikey P]

I'm a Palomar man.

 

[Giorgio]

Rarely do i use 300 feet of vacuum hose. Maybe a few times per year.

 

[Billy]

The fuel economy about equals out, but you are correct the maintenance can be expensive on high milage trucks.

So with my high mileage & hours I should really consider selling now? :mrgreen: