Interested In Advertising? | Contact Us Here
Warning!

 

Welcome to Clean It Up; the UK`s largest cleaning forum with over 34,000 members

 

Please login or register to post and reply to topics.      

 

Forgot your password? Click here

rosskesava

Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« on: April 01, 2005, 12:07:40 am »
Yesterday we turned up at a job at almost the same time as another w/c. As around here w/c’s are not that common we had a bit of a chat and it turned out that he was cleaning the property next door to the one we were doing except we were using traditional methods he and was using WFP’s.

As we are hoping to go over to WFP’s this year we were quite intrigued to have a closer look at how it all works. During the discussion I asked if that method is genuinely quicker.

As the 2 properties we next door to each other (semi detached) we agreed to have a race just to see. As there was 2 of us and one of him, I flicked a coin to see which one of us would do the windows and fortunately for me – I was to be the spectator.

The properties were almost identical and both were 3 bedrooms and both had conservatories.

The traditional method was quicker by 9 minutes. The WFP bloke took 36 minutes and my partner took 27. Not only that we were charging £15 and he was charging £10.

So there you have it.

WFP may be safer but traditional methods are quicker and you can charge more especially at this time of year.

Cheers

Ross

texas girl

  • Posts: 348
Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2005, 05:21:02 am »
Hey Ross, 8)

Interesting post.  As you have heard me say; almost 100% of the time we clean the insides of houses. 

So I guess the WFP is not the best choice for us; altho I am looking forward to trying it someday.

In my case I would have to carry all of both requirements. Traditional; ladders, and a full WFP system.

I would probably wear myself out just unloading.  So for now I will stick with traditional methods.

Your post gave me food for thought. :o

Hugs,

Texas girl  :-* :-*
Debbie

Ian_Giles

  • Posts: 2986
Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2005, 06:40:06 am »
Mmm,
As Debbie says, interesting post, but if I took 36 minutes to do a 3 bed semi + consrvatory I would be worried :o
A local pub I clean takes me just under 25 minutes, probably closer to 20 mins if I can get all my timings just right.
Priot to WFP, absolutely flat out out, this pub took me 35 minutes.

It has 5 large upstairs windows on the front, 3 of them large enough to make doing each of them with just the one go up the ladder risky because of over stretching, one window is above a sloping, tiled porch that I had to walk across (didn't get done if it was wet, too slippy)
Downstairs it has 8 of these large windows, 2 moves with the pointer for 4 of them.

Back elevation:
Pointer work on downstairs- 8 windows, all smaller than the front, mostly toilet windows, only 3 bar windows.
Upstairs no ladder needed, large flat roofed balcony- 3 large windows and one old fashioned set of french doors, 6 panes of glass.

This is a £15 account, has always been one I did at absolutely full tilt, always timed myself, price was very tight, I could never get it done under 35 minutes.

My mate, who bought my domestic round off me did three semis in the street opposite in the same time, about £18 and time for a coffee and a chat with one of the customers, and he got back to the pub while I was packing my gear on the car. We had met at the pub & agreed to have a pint after I had finished it and he had finished his 3 accounts.
This guy has done this pub often for me as he usually caretakes my round when I go on holidays, and he always moaned about having to do this pub, he struggled to do it in under 45 minutes :-\

With the WFP I'm doing it with ease in 25 minutes, I still think I'm under priced on it though :-\

I would agree with Ross though, in that in a straight 'race' you can work faster than WFP, on a standard UPVC window, even an upstairs one, were I poised with my brush hovering over the window, and you were up your ladder, applicator at the ready, you would, or should, beat me in a straight race.
I'm not talking about me whipping over the window, barely more than wetting the glass, but of washing the window frame properly and the glass too, rinsing properly.
It's unlikely that traditional window cleaner would win if he also did all of the frames too.
On a single, stand alone, smallish account, I don't think there would be much difference in the two methods.
But the bigger the account, the more WFP will come into its own.
And of course there is simply no comparison with georgian or leaded windows, WFP faster by a considerable margin you will find.

Accounts with Oxidised frames will always be done better with Trad, and quicker too, as the WFP user will have to take a lot more time and care, and will probably not do anywhere near as good a job on these.
Thank god accounts like that are the exception and not the norm ;D

Ian
Ian. ISM CLEANING SERVICES

Grafters Cleaning Services

  • Posts: 1287
Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2005, 08:05:46 am »
if you check out this post you will see my views on wfp and speed  http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=7069.0 yes there are disadavantages using wfp on 1 off jobs but when you have a few in a row to do you will find it's quicker aswel as safer
JAY "GRAFTERS"
From Southampton
www.high-shine.co.uk

Ian Rochester

  • Posts: 2588
Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2005, 08:40:06 am »
The will be times when trad is quicker than WFP, normally one off small houses.

We use both systems depending upon the round, got a row of town houses to do today which were at the full extend of our long ladders when doing traditional and took two of us about 3 hours work, 10" small georgian windows.  Now with WFP one person can do them in just over an hour!  To follow we have a school to do, about 2 hours work using WFP, used to take 2 people best part of day previously.

Single houses and bungalows - Traditional
Builders cleans - generally Traditional.
More than 3 to do together - generally WFP depending on access to rear
High or risky windows - WFP

There will always be pro's and con's for both systems,

rosskesava

Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2005, 04:52:44 pm »
What I wrote above was meant to be a bit 'tongue in cheek' so to speak. I don't actually think it is as straight forwards as I wrote it.

What I didn't write was that he can do those windows in almost any weather where as we can't. Also he doesn't have the risks associated with ladders.

Anyway, very interesting replies though.

Thanks.

AuRavelling79

  • Posts: 25385
Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2005, 06:04:48 pm »
Ross - you said both houses had conservatories - any windows above them? If so how did your mate clean them?
It's a game of three halves!

Duke

Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2005, 06:06:55 pm »
good point...

Philip Hanson

  • Posts: 652
Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2005, 06:32:59 pm »
I had a long conversation/argument with a fellow window cleaner a few months ago about the virtue of WFP compared to ladders, and he just wouldn't even consider the possibility that WFP could be a better way of working.

He said WFP could never possibly be better or faster than WFP.  He said WFP was a gimmick, that suppliers were trying to offload something people didn't really need.  He said he had used ladders for X years, and he would continue to for ever more.  End of story.

I caught up with him a couple of weeks ago, and yes, you guessed it, he now has a pole system, and a really good one too.

The point here is, and I've seen this at least a dozen times:  People go through a process with WFP like this:

1: Use ladders, never heard of poles

2: Hear about pole systems, don't understand how they work, dismiss as bad idea.

3: Hear more about pole systems, especially due to WAH regs.  Maybe see someone using one.  Still don't understand them and think "That's a load of rubbish"

4: Hear/read more about pole systems, still think its a bad idea, but little bit interested now.  Bit jealous of others who have them.

5: Friends start getting pole systems, so get a few pricelists and have a heart-attack.  Very confused about choice and alarmed at the cost.  Still don't properly understand how they work.  Dissmiss idea of pole systems, annoyed.

6: Discover its not necessary to spend £7k just yet, and might be possible to get a little starter system for a lot less (ie £1k).  After a few months of contemplation, decide to buy a very small system with credit card.

7: After First two weeks, nightmare.  What have I done.  This is no faster at all and customers are whinging.  Very annoyed.

8: After First 6 weeks: Actually, this is quite a bit faster now that I'm used to it.  Also, I'm not as tired as when using ladders either.  And yes, it really is safer.  Customers are okay about it now.  Picking up loads of them who notice me using poles.

9: After 3 months:  Why on earth didn't I get a pole system sooner.  This is great, it really is twice as fast!  I need a bigger system, and now I know what to look for.

10: Realisation that WFP is expensive, and the changeover is difficult, but very worthwhile.

So if you're anti-WFP now, this time next year you'll probably have a system.

-Philip
Editor, Professional Window Cleaner Magazine

"The irony of the information age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion"
John Lawton

rosskesava

Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2005, 06:41:22 pm »
There is two windows above the consevatory of the house my mate was doing and he done them with an extending pole which I know does not give an ideal clean.

I don't know about the other house - I would assume that it had at least one window depending on where the consesvatory is and I know what you're going to write.

WFP's.

Am between no 5 and no 6 on the above posting and thinking how the hell can we afford to spend that much but am not annoyed, just wondering where we will find the cash.

Cheers


Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2005, 06:49:02 pm »
Ive put a post on here before about this topic too.
I clean a house for a f1 team director.They had window cleaners doing it by hand as it is all lead glass so impossible to use squeege.They took 2 days to clean the outside by hand and could not reach the third floor windows.I take two hours with wfp and have been told by the man himself that they will never use someone who does it by hand over wfp  ever again.Also i clean a building that was done by hand by three different window cleaners who all had to hire  cherry pickers to do the job.They drove all over the flower beds and grass took all day to do the outside it takes 3 hours by wfp and again they will not switch.I also clean four buildings for a well known food manufacturer whith the main office block consisting of 587 6 foot by 6 foot windows used to take 1 week by hand it takes 7 hours by wfp.So yes traditional is quicker than wfp on small houses but it will never compete on anything bigger than a small mansion or office block or four storie block of flats.

Duke

Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2005, 06:59:20 pm »
Well said Phillip.....that was me.... :(

pjulk

Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2005, 07:36:50 pm »
Quote
587 6 foot by 6 foot windows used to take 1 week by hand it takes 7 hours by wfp

That's going some 83 windows per hour
How many people are using pole's to clean that amount

Paul

Re: Traditional methods are better than WFP's
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2005, 09:06:51 pm »
I've taken on a few houses by customers who said they didn't like their previous window cleaner because he changed over to a WFP.  I charge more than him too.

I did question each customer 'why' they didn't like the WFP (because I plan to get one) and they said that once the water dried, it didn't look as good as it used too.

However, when I cleaned those houses; they looked pretty good (no spots) and even 'Wor Lass' whose a perfectionist said there was no problem with them.

Therefore I think if a customer doesn't like their window cleaner (for what ever reason) and they get the chance to 'swap'; then they will, and they'll use the 'pole' for an excuse.

As for the customers, they seem fine, pleasant, good payers; not moaners.  Oh, how they'll laugh when they see me using the same system as their previous window cleaner!