Rick, i see it advertised in the newest ICS mag but don't see it on your site...did you run out of them already?

thanx --- Derek.

Ah the X2.

I'll start by saying that it is an absolutely great machine design. The concept of the machine is excellent. And on a good day it's a pretty cool little scrubber.

However the manufacturers production of the machine fell far short of our expectations. Regrettably there were too many delays and disappointments on the manufacturing end. And I am not comfortable attaching myself to an undertaking that can't be implemented 100%.

So at this point the X2 project has been put on hold. If the manufacturer can bring everything on line to the level that we expect we might possibly reconsider moving forward with it again - like I said, it's great machine design. But at this point we are also looking at alternatives. I am hoping that we will have a GOOD cylindrical machine to offer shortly.

All of our X2 customers have been taken care of. Refunds have been made. Our customers have all been very understanding and reasonable. And I've been happy to do anything that we can do to make it up to them. I feel good knowing that we're doing the right thing for our customers. I'd rather lose money than sell a product that isn't perfect.

Speaking about money, yikes this has been a costly endeavor. You see, we paid for the first five machines to be built before they were ever produced. We've also advertised the X2 in Cleanfax and in print ads. So at this point I'm still out thousands of dollars.

However I just couldn't see trying to push forward with something that wasn't being delivered to my customers as expected. So pulling the plug on the X2 and then making it right with our customers was clearly the right thing to do.

You live and learn. I assure you, I'll be much more careful before I agree to implement any new product in the future. For example, we'll begin testing a new cylindrical brush machine next week. I will look very closely at this machine. At least the machine we're considering is being built by a very strong manufacturer that I know well and have high regards for.

Well that is the sad story of the X2. A great design that has fallen short on the manufacturing side of things. We're out a bunch of money. But our customers have all been taken care of, and in the long run that's what matters in business.



Rick Gelinas
encapman

I'm sorry to hear that you've taken a beating on the X2. As you know I had one and I was, as you said, not pleased with the machine. Thank you for taking care of me and I will want to be updated on information regarding future machines.

David VanBriggle

just found your BB and saw these postings. Haven't begun encap. services yet, except on a limited basis, using a pile lifter for agitation. Am considering the Cimex, but have concerns re: wool carpets, specifically Axeministers - their website cautions against any rotary type cleaning on them. There must be some issues re: Cimex/rotary cleaning with encap. to stimulate the development of a cylindrical machine - could you fill me in on those? Thanks.

Good point Dianne, Many mills have said NO to rotary machines. On the other hand, to my knowledge, no mills have rejected planetary machines.

The planetary Cimex doesn't spin in a circle like a rotary machine. It turns clockwise and counter-clockwise at the same time. And since it's turning left and right simultaneously, there is no chance of harming the carpet.

It is true that some cylindrical brush machine manufacturers have already courted the mills. They've already worked through the mill politics and have gotten their cylindrical designs approved. However let's be absolutely clear on this point... a cylindrical machine will pull far more staple from a wool carpet than a Cimex.

The Cimex is only beginning to be evaluated by the mills. As the mills get the chance to compare the planetary design it stands to reason that they'll recommend the machine that does the least damage. You might consider running your own comparisons to determine which scrubbing design has the least impact on the carpet. I think you'll come to the same conclusion that we have... The Cimex is unique in that it absolutely will not harm a carpet.

In the meantime, if mill approval is the only deciding factor then a cylindrical machines would also be an option. There are situations where a smaller cylindrical machine would be a good alternative. Keep in mind that either way you go, agitation is fundamental to good encap cleaning. The Cimex is in a class of its own when it comes to deep agitation. And it is also alone when it comes to safety to the fiber and the operator.




Rick Gelinas
encapman

To start with, cylindrical brushes have been test and used for years on carpet in the form of power heads, pile lifters, host & capture machines. The manufacturors are "COMFORTABLE" with them. Buffers have also been used for many yeats on carpet, however, in the hands of poor cleaners and even some well trained cleaners, the system can be tempermental with tip blossoming. Manufacturors don't like that. With the vast variety of pads, bonnets and even scrub pads, the result varied dramatically and sometimes caused damage. My belief is that it is more related to pushing the system beyond where it should be used.

Unfortunately, the Cimex has been lumped in with buffers and, as anyone who has ever used one knows, they are dramatically different. If you run a buffer in one spot too long on a cut pile carpet with any pad or the pad is too dry, you stand a good chance of tip blossoming. When we were in Las Vegas at Connections with Rick G. we ran the Cimex on one spot on a cut pile carpet, even stepping on the machine for fun, and were unable to do any tip damage. My belief is that the Cimex has not gone through the extensive testing that other machines have been due to only becoming popular for carpet cleaning in the past few years. As the system goes through its testing, it will get great reviews as is already the case from guys like Bill Doan and others from Shaw as well as Interface in Europe.

Rick Thode
Releasit/Cimex Canada

sorry to hear about the problems Rick G.

glad to know you've made the right decisions and put your clients ahead of your pocket book...it can only add to the respect you deserve as a distributor and manufacturer.

respectfully --- Derek.

I must say I was very disappointed after receiving a phone call from Rick. I had an X2 on backorder, and could hardly awaits arrival. I hemmed and hawed over going with a X2 or the cimex, and my wife said I was driving her nuts---just order something. Still could not make my mind up. Called and spoke to Rick, he recommended the X2, since 95% of my business is residential. He called one late afternoon to tell me the bad news, he pulled the plug for all the reasons he listed. I must say a greatful thanks for Ricks honest phone call. I would rather be disappointed about not getting the machine, then disappointed with the machine. Another big THANKS to Rick for being an honest upfront business man. Thanks---Now hurry up and design something that us residential guys can use,lol.

Thanks again Jay White

RG, I am glad to see you pull the plug. I had great misgivings about that machine from the word go.

We had a repair shop for close to 25 years. After dissecting Cimex, Aztec Sidewinders, Whittakers, Mist N' Brush, etc. I can say I have misgivings about a machine with steal gears. The belt systems in the Cimex and Sidewinder and the plastic and fiber gears in most of the other counter rotaters are designed to relieve stress on the system and break before damage is done to major parts.

A machine with steal gears may take care of the problem of gears stripping out (maybe), but it puts undo stress on other areas of the machine and would cause other components back up the line to fail.

Premiere out of the UK makes those little machines for several companies in the USA. While you may replace a gear and bearing now and then we have had great success with them.