Very disturbing news

[john m.]

Re: Very disturbing news

Hmm this is interesting...^if it gets any hotter when washing cars your water may not even get to the dirt your trying to hit

[10degreesbtdc]

Correction

It seems I left out some important info from my initial post. This quote actually came from a review by About.com, part of which is shown on Bayes website where a link took me to an article that seemlessly fit into their advertising. My apologies to Bayes.

"For vehicles cleaned with this car care product on a regular basis, we can't say there's any better alternative. It cleans, shines, and protects any vehicle that is regularly washed and cared for. However, if your car is heavily soiled, hasn't been washed in weeks, or has just made a long trip, we'd opt for the automated car wash first."

The calculator in my previous post indicates I would have to run my hose for 116 minutes non-stop to use 149 gallons, by the way.

[ClearlyCoated]

Re: Very disturbing news

Bayes is trying to sell a product that will meet a lot of resistance from the regular consumer market, so they have to use the most extreme example of water waste to validate their product and to get the average consumer thinking "green" because it's popular and trendy to be PC.

So your average car washing Joe is going to let the hose rip full blast as he soaks his car, drops the still running hose to soap up the car, and then picks up the hose to rinse off the car. But 150 gallons sounds like a LOT, especially if you say you metered that the hose would have to run unchecked for nearly 2 hours to use 150 gallons.

After all, who's going to buy a waterless car was if it only save 20 gallons a wash?

[dave40co]

Re: Very disturbing news

I am going to edit myself on this post since we can't talk politics!

[10degreesbtdc]

Water usage calculator

I think I misunderstood the calculator I posted a link to earlier. Please tell me if this is right.

It appears the "outside water" (hose) function does not consider running a hose continuously. It must assume that a nozzle is used. The "faucet" function indicates 150 gallons would only take about 37 minutes. It's a little confusing to me. I don't think I could fill up three 55 gallon drums with my hose in 40 minutes. I'm going to have to time how long it takes to fill my 50 gallon mobile water tank next time.

[CieraSL]

Re: Very disturbing news

For reference, here is a pic off the internet of a 150 gallon water tank in the bed of a pickup truck.



Pic taken from northerntool.com.

[Eddie6th]

Re: Very disturbing news

They only way I can relate to this is by how long it took me to fill my aquarium a few years back.It held approx.100 gallons which was imperial gallons,not US gallons.If I remeber well a US gallon is just under 4 litres and an imp. gallon is 4.5l. So I think that would roughly work out at 120-125 US gallons.

Using just normal tap pressure through a hose running constant,I think it took about 30mins. Maybe more. I can't remember,but one way to find out is just mark a bucket at a gallon,fill it and see how many seconds it takes,then just multiply by 150 and divide by 60.Off the top of my head,I think 45-50mins?

I use a trigger pistol on the hose,so when i'm not rinsing it's off.I think 150 gallons is a bit exaggerated.As said earlier,to sell their stuff,they're taking an extreme case,where the hose is left running constantly throughout the whole process.