Over the last couple of years I have had the opportunity to conduct some experimentation to equate the supposition that lighter equals faster in the world of WFP's. At a particular commercial site, that leant itself to such an undertaking, l established the average time taken to complete a clean with a predetermined standard of equipment taken as a constant. I then determined to ascertain the time variables, if any, with a single alteration to the setup each consecutive clean.
Assuming that my technique altered as a direct result of the changes made and not as a result of exaggerated effort, the time disparities were interesting.
I'll spare you the pedantic nature of the intermediaries and cut to the two extremes.
So, for a commercial position that was cleaned traditionally by a window cleaner with a serious purpose in his stride, this job required 7 1/2 hours labour. Both the following choices of equipment proved to be very quick methods of cleaning windows but the slowest resulting from a SL flocked bristled brush (weight and friction were contributing factors) with 1 1/2 litres a minute flow rate, on a 25 ft carbon fiber pole. Within the confines of the experimentation, which, as you can appreciate, weren't extreme (l'm only referring to various flow rates, SLX poles and SL brushes), this arrangement provided the heaviest weight, the most friction and the least flow rate and also initially provided the standard to obtain an average time of 4 hours 10 minutes. After a concatenation of tweaks over the next 2 years or so, the quickest arrangement was procured at 2 hours 40 minutes. This was achieved with a DT SL Xtreme mono filament bristled brush with 3mm jets, 4 1/2 litres a minute flow rate, and an extremely worn (therefore lighter, at 780g) 18 ft SLX pole. That's 1 1/2 hours quicker than an already very quick cleaning method.
So, if, like me, you work on your own and can look after the equipment, it might be worth investing in the necessary upgrades.
I think, therefore I experiment!
Nick
