[Count Phil]

I just found something for those stuck in the past with a tucker pole. Like me. Its still my favorite along with my hybrid.

Aquafactors have released a new quick release gooseneck and adjustable brush head. Same tucker brush but the angle of the head is adjustable and lockable! It looks top class like most tucker stuff. It'll be at windex. And its on their website under news.

Sorry for being sad.

[Alex Gardiner]

Looks good.

[[GQC] Tim]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

[Wayne Thomas]

A 24ft Tucker pole with pennel clamps is good value for money.
It will outlast a hybrid xtel pole by years. It's roughly the same weight. The brush is far superior. The only 2 disadvantages are that it is colder on the hands in winter but hotter in the summer and the clamps take a few seconds more to undo or re-tighten.
I love using a 24 ft Tucker (pennel clamps fitted of course) in the summer as the pole is hot to handle, great for my fingers considering I suffer with arthritus.
Xtel pole for the winter until spring then it's back to Tucker summertime.

[NWH]

Wayne why don`t you wear gloves.

[Wayne Thomas]

Wayne why don`t you wear gloves.

I can't stand wearing gloves.  I prefer to get the blood circulating after they've tingled from the cold for half an hour then they are lovely and warm for the rest of the day. I blame it on being an ex-squaddie , as I was familiar with sleeping out in the cold in sod all, (regardless of the weather) in my younger years. I may live down south but I'm not a softie, lol.
I've ordered some winter gloves from Gardiners for my helper a couple weeks ago but he's still waiting for them to arrive in the post. Probably arrive in the spring, lol.

[*foxman]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

Your better off making up your own mind before reading 'baised' reviews/info - believe me there are a number of happy Tucker customers out there.

[peter holley]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

Your better off making up your own mind before reading 'baised' reviews/info - believe me there are a number of happy Tucker customers out there.

get back to work

[[GQC] Tim]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

Your better off making up your own mind before reading 'baised' reviews/info - believe me there are a number of happy Tucker customers out there.

Well just look at how the pole bends, c'mon, that's horrendous, brush nearly touches the ground. Rigidity is something they've obviously never heard of. Nothing biased about the article.

[gary evans]

I agree with all the for Tuckers, using there systems daily.

The poles, brush,s & angle of the gooseneck is excellent. I,ve tried Ionics & none of us 6 like them at all. I have not tried every pole out there so will not comment on others, but, as most have said Tucker are a good all round pole.

We use them up to 45ft daily & there brush is by far the best.

Have just purchased a Brodex 650, with prolong poles. This system is very good for the money, but, there is different adeptions to be done to make there poles & brush combnation better. When i,ve done these it will be an excellent system of the shelf.

Gary

[*foxman]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

Your better off making up your own mind before reading 'baised' reviews/info - believe me there are a number of happy Tucker customers out there.

get back to work

  Hey Pete! How you doing? Hows the Pack running??

[dd]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

That magazine is from Ionics to promote their gear and rubbish others. What I don't like about the tucker pole is their jets, too weak. Have fitted some adapted jets from Stream, but they are a bit too powerful. Tuckerpole (Aquafactors) suggest using pole with overhead spray, but I prefer single hose pole.  Have used the pole on flats in windy weather no probs.

[TennetClean]

well well dd, welcome to the forum, registered today and kicking off your first post with one that is slagging off in support of what foxman says.

You arent mates with craig21t by any chance are you?  If you are, tell foxman I said Hi and we miss craig.

[[GQC] Tim]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

That magazine is from Ionics to promote their gear and rubbish others. What I don't like about the tucker pole is their jets, too weak. Have fitted some adapted jets from Stream, but they are a bit too powerful. Tuckerpole (Aquafactors) suggest using pole with overhead spray, but I prefer single hose pole.  Have used the pole on flats in windy weather no probs.

That test was 100% legit pal.

[Count Phil]

I only wanted to point out that the tucker now has an adjustable head.

The test may be legit, but it doesn't show that on 2 storey work it is the most rigid pole. My hybrid (which is super rigid on gardiners test) isn't as rigid on 2 storey. But on three storey the hybrid is more rigid and the tucker gets bendier the higher it goes - but in a nice springy way which you can ping up the window ( hard to explain, not all floppy in a glass fibre way).

And the brush is still the best. Also, on the test, the other pole cost twice as much and weighed the same so you would expect them to be stiffer!

[dd]

When I saw how rubbish their poles were in the last WC pro magazine, I'd say no to everything Tucker, except for their brushes.

Also that gooseneck might be a good idea, but is it really necessary? Look at all the weight that it's adding, especially the brush attachment. Looks terrible.

That magazine is from Ionics to promote their gear and rubbish others. What I don't like about the tucker pole is their jets, too weak. Have fitted some adapted jets from Stream, but they are a bit too powerful. Tuckerpole (Aquafactors) suggest using pole with overhead spray, but I prefer single hose pole.  Have used the pole on flats in windy weather no probs.

That test was 100% legit pal.

Who are you an Ionics rep?
Who would seriously believe a magazine published/funded by Ionics would compare their pole to others, and not have theirs come out on top. To have an unbiased test there must be complete impartiality.
The article also had a disadvantage of the tucker pole as having to use a special tool for the clamping system, when the Pennel clamp was already on the market and being fitted to new tucker poles.
Ionic products may be OK, but they seem to spend too much time trying to discredit their competitors. I am sure we would all prefer it if they were simply more honest and integrous.

[[GQC] Tim]

You put two poles together at 44', exactly the same bar about 6feet away, poles have exactly the same length. How on earh can you cheat in that. C'mon don't be silly.

Also, The facelift and the unger carbo were very rigid. So were they all of the sudden cheating in favour of Facelift and the like? They certainly weren't sponsored by them.

Tucker drooped to the ground, hence the least rigid. Simple as that. Also, I didn't mention clamps, I ment rigidity. Besides, they have used those clamps for 50 odd years, they should be judged on all the poles out on the market imo.

Ionics rep. LOL, I wish.

[TennetClean]

LOL dd,

is dd short for dindowcleaning darehouse?

Craig, good to have you back me ol' mucker.  Great how you 'appeared' back from being away as soon as your name was mentioned.  Did foxman shout you in from the other room? LOL classic.

foxman, are you walking about in bare feet? you seem to have made so many sockpuppets you must have used em all up by now.

[*foxman]

Tennet you been drinking again?? Heard you had a problem.........