I spoke with a carpet mill rep today about getting the okay to use our Cimex machine on one particular account. He said he would check again but thouhgt that the mills had said NO to the use of a cimex. He even said that Shaw had backed off of any endorsement of it.
Rick can you update, confirm or deny his statement?

We need to be very careful with this account as the mill rep. is out inspecting the carpets on a regular basis. It is to good of an account to take any chances with regardless of how well we know the system works.

Ken Martin

What mill are we talking about?

This rep and this account are from Tandus group of companies.

Ken Martin

Rick Gelinas and I had a chance to chat Bill Doan from Shaw at Connections. Actually, they are very impressed with the use of the Cimex/Releasit in there testing. So, I guess it all depends on who you talk to as far as manufacturors goes. Many haven't even tested the Cimex and are probably equating it's action to that of a buffer, which if left on one spot too long, can cause tip blossoming and other fiber damage.

Rick Thode
Releasit/Cimex Canada

Tandus does not want you to use any machine that Looks like a Rotary on their Carpet, period. Bill Doan has been around a long time. He has played on many teams over the years and sometimes might even tell you what you want to hear.

I am sure Rick has met success at the ISSA show in fact the groups most represented their might turn out to be key players for the Cimex.

"Commercial Only"

And if the Cimex worked anything like a regular rotary machine Fred, I could understand your logic. But, anyone who has ever ran a Cimex knows, you could run a cimex on one spot on a carpet for an extended amount of time without fiber damage. Whereas, you could never leave a rotary machine like that without causing severe fiber damage.

As many people on this board have been in the industry for many years and have come to accept the encapsulation process as a great tool to add to there arsenal of other tools. When a customer ask to have the best darn carpet cleaning performed we have the ability to use one system and if it turns out to fall short, you have options.

The more I work with the Releasit/Cimex system, the more I've come to trust it on commercial carpet. When I use the truck-mount, I'm never quite sure if I'll get wick back the next day and it never seems to look quite as good the next day after it dries, as opposed the the Encapsulation that very seldom wicks back and always looks better the next day than when you are cleaning.

Even, let's say the the truck-mount technically does a more thorough job. But if I clean and I get wick back. and did another area beside it that doesn't wick back and maybe even looks a little brighter. Who do you think the business owner will think did a better job? And if he's the one paying the bill. Well, that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Rick Thode
Releasit/Cimex Canada

The other thing I was suprised about was how other people feel about it. We just cleaned a funeral home here in town. The family that owns it also owns two others. The day we were there cleaning only one employee was there. Since then I have seen the owners at Chamber of Commerce functions and they say how great it looks and how much less dust there is and how improved their allergies are. Then the owner's mother-in-law called yesterday with a water damage. While we were there she was telling me how much her allergies have improved since we cleaned up there. She said when she is up there her allergies are not an issue now. I was not expecting this benefit from the Cimex/Releasit but it is great.

We cleaned the entire building with the Cimex/Releasit (10,000 sf) except under the pews in the chapel. The Cimex would not fit so we pulled in the TM and cleaned under the pews with the wand.

This is an extra benefit I would have never dreamed possible without HWE.

Kevin Pearson

Rick it is not my logic. I have seen the Cimex. I have recommended it to a friend who bought it & releasit. My statement only says that anyone looking at the Cimex is going to say "oh I get it, rotary cleaning with three heads". You can explain all you want about the counter rotaing effect and you will still get people saying its rotary cleaning. Thats my first point and second point is Tandus who is C&A Collins & Akman does not want Rotary cleaning on their carpet period.

Meanwhile while people argue over this ServiceMaster is being recommended by Tandus in many markets because they actually have the common sense to give the "Customer what they want".

Now I don't agree with their take on this but it is a hard to change minds. Just realize the prespective so you can deal with it on sales calls.

"Commercial Only"

Yes, I understand. It's like anything new, it definitely takes time before everyone becomes comfortable with it. It's fun being involved with new things, but it's also frustrating. Because you know what you can do, but not everyone believes you. I guess we just have to ride the wave.

Rick Thode
Releasit/Cimex Canada

Cimex is not new by any means of the imagination, been around since dirt!
C & A in Canada have gone as far to say not even a Cimex machine can be used on their carpets.
If you want big commercial accounts than you need to clean the carpet the way the manufacturer wants it cleaned period!

While Cimex has been around for a long time, its use on carpets is relatively new. I guess its along the same line as bonnet cleaning voids warranties, which we all know to be false if done correctly. Regardless of this, if the commercial client fails to clean his carpets because he keeps on experiencing wick back and feels that he shouldn't clean them till he has to. His damage to the carpet will be far greater than by using an "INFERIOR" or "NON APPROVED" system. We know that anytime there is a change in technology, mindsets are hard to change.

I know that for myself after 20 years in this industry, working with different systems and tools. If I'm called out to clean or fix a carpet problem, they are counting on my onsite evaluation and diagnosis prescribe the best solution. If I'm restricted in the tools I can use and then know that it could have been remedied with a tool I was unable to use. Well that's just my fault in giving up too soon. It's like telling a doctor after all his training that he can't use a particular scalple because they don't like it. I guess that only makes sense in our industry.

Rick Thode

Many of the mills don't want rotary machines.
The Cimex is not a rotary machine.
The Cimex is a planetary machine.

To my knowledge not a single mill, none, nada, zip, have ever printed any statement saying that they won't allow a Cimex machine to be used on their carpets. So while the Cimex may not yet be on their recommended list, no one has stated in writing not to use one.

The Cimex machine will not damage fiber. That's because it simply is not possible to damage a carpet with a planetary machine. As the deck turns in one direction, the 3 heads spin in the opposite direction. So it will not do a damaging twist to the yarn because it turns left and right simultaneously.

By comparison run any "mill approved" cylindrical brush machine next to a Cimex on a cheap plush carpet for an abusive 3 minutes without moving the machine and then compare the results. The "mill approved" cylindrical brush machines will produce a sizable unhealthy pile of carpet fuzz. The Cimex will produce little to no fuzz whatsoever. Now push the test to 6 minutes, 12 minutes, 30 minutes. You will SEE which machine is safest for the carpet.

So why haven't the mills all recognized how safe the Cimex is yet? The Cimex has never been pushed through the mills. This is a political game of positioning yourself in front of the powers that be. Cimex over in England never pursued this. This is beginning to change however. Truvox in England and Cimex USA have seen the need to get the Cimex in front of the mills. And as the process gets under way, mill approvals will start to come on board as this initiative moves forward. But the process will take time.

BTW I got a call from a large customer of Shaw carpeting last month who had been recommended by Shaw to clean their carpet with (you guessed it) Cimex machines. So as Bob Dylan sang "The Times They Are A Changing". And we're getting off to a good start.

The Cimex was originally designed 71 years ago for safety. And that is one of its attributes. It's a safe machine for not only the operator, it's also safe for the surface being cleaned. The mills will undoubtedly come to appreciate this fact. They want to protect their product. And the Cimex is exceptional in its ability to accomplish this.




Rick Gelinas

I was always told that there is no warranty with commerical carpet. It reminds of Dupont and the Dupont certified cleaning firm. All the did is spray a foam on the commerical carpet and bonnet clean it. They call this method ResisTech. If you pay money to them to be the certified firm, I am sure they will only recommend this method for the carpet cleanig.

Steve Frasier
Drew and Steve's Floor Care
www.drewandsteve.net

Rick T. why are you arguing with me I know very well that we have lots of tools that mills don't approve of.
Get Cimex of their butts and into the mills to prove to the mill people the this is a safe cleaning method. { It is called political marketing} I don't care what people that sell these tools say, when we run into a facility manager that is aware or cares about what the mill cleaning requirements are, than we better abide by the requirements.
I do wish that the mills would give these people a
little insight as what they should budget for a good carpet maintenance program, particulaly when they suggest only hwe should be used as a cleaning program.

Inferior or Non Approved cleaning methods could cover all of the common cleaning methods used to day.
Most commercial warranty claims are a result of inferior cleaning practices, using any of to day's methods, and that could well include the Cimex machine.
I continue to see folks using too aggressive type pads on the Cimex and it will only be time before someone destroys a carpet and than the mills will real happy with the Cimex method.
By the way I have never seen a mill warranty that used the words Approved or Not Approved cleaning method, I do see the Suggested cleaning or Suggested not to be used cleaning system.

Don, please don't take what I've been saying as trying to argue with you. Most of what I've said is out of frustration with so many things here in Canada. We all try to stay on top of the latest and greatest. We research new systems and tools, find the ones that work and the ones that are a waste of time. The mills then come to us with the problems they have with a particular client and then attempt to hold us back on what we know might work. It just seems crazy.

I'm with you all the way Don as far as approaching the mills. This machine and chemical have been in front of Shaw in the US and in talking with Bill Doan from Shaw, they love it and are all for it, yet you talk to Shaw reps in Canada and look at you like you are from Mars. Same thing with Interface Europe, they recommed the system, even specifically naming the Cimex and yet here again they look at you like your from Mars. It's just frustration.

I would love to talk to you one on one and discuss ways in which we can get this more recognized in Canada so we can use the tools we know will work best for some situations.

Rick Thode
Releasit/Cimex Canada

i have a cimex and ive used it alot for stone and for carpets and in my personal opinion there are carpets i wouldnt use it on , i would not consider it rotary cleaning but thats what everyone sees it as , on the other hand i have had the cimex and 17 in scrubber both in the same room doing side by side comparisons and we didnt find any difference in one over the other in cleaning,we used brushes and bonnets
jeff