Professional Painting Contractors Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

New - Purdy Dual Roll off Bucket

1 reading
Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
#21 ·
jack pauhl said:
I would be using one if it saved money but rolling out of a pan is at least 200% faster plus the other 9 merits pans have over buckets. I need to cover 100 sq ft per minute. For me to give one of those buckets to one of the guys would be asking him to slow down or pay twice the price for the same work performed.

Just got off the phone with another paint contractor. We were talking about a new house I just finished in 24 hours, just me, whole house, walls, trim, doors. He assumed I sprayed walls. He doesn't understand how thats possible to do. Considering the majority of paint on a new home is going on walls, it only makes sense to save the most time in that area. For comparison, it takes him 5-6 guys to do the same size house. They roll out of buckets.

I primarily do the majority of rolling with an 18-inch out of a pan.

Image
Click to expand...
Uh oh here we go again.
 
#27 ·
jack pauhl said:
I would be using one if it saved money but rolling out of a pan is at least 200% faster plus the other 9 merits pans have over buckets. I need to cover 100 sq ft per minute.

Image
Click to expand...
One of the many reasons why I hate this site. I can roll 1,000 sf per hour with a 9" frame - and I guarantee most guys couldn't slap on paint that fast. And that's loading the paint so fast and moving it to the wall that there is a glob of paint not quite on the roller being flung with it in mid-air.

So maybe I could do 2,000 SF per hour in a normal residential setting with an 18" - yet Brian/Jack claims 3x that production.

Can a marathon sprinter run the 100 yard dash 3X faster than the average/athletic person? Nope.

Can a NBA professional jump 3X higher than good athletic high school basketball player - not on your life.

Can a professional baseball pitcher pitch balls 3x faster than a good town baseball team pitcher can - seriously doubt it.

Yet we're all expected to believe that Jack-o-Brian can roll an 8 foot tall wall, 12-1/2 feet wide in a mere 60 seconds. That's over 8x the width of the roller - that's 7.5 seconds per one 18" wide stroke, assuming no overlaps. Takes me longer than 7.5 seconds just to load a friggin roller.
 
#28 ·
plainpainter said:
One of the many reasons why I hate this site. I can roll 1,000 sf per hour with a 9" frame - and I guarantee most guys couldn't slap on paint that fast. And that's loading the paint so fast and moving it to the wall that there is a glob of paint not quite on the roller being flung with it in mid-air.

So maybe I could do 2,000 SF per hour in a normal residential setting with an 18" - yet Brian/Jack claims 3x that production.

Can a marathon sprinter run the 100 yard dash 3X faster than the average/athletic person? Nope.

Can a NBA professional jump 3X higher than good athletic high school basketball player - not on your life.

Can a professional baseball pitcher pitch balls 3x faster than a good town baseball team pitcher can - seriously doubt it.

Yet we're all expected to believe that Jack-o-Brian can roll an 8 foot tall wall, 12-1/2 feet wide in a mere 60 seconds. That's over 8x the width of the roller - that's 7.5 seconds per one 18" wide stroke, assuming no overlaps. Takes me longer than 7.5 seconds just to load a friggin roller.
Click to expand...
Well yea, but your not using bher. ;)
 
Discussion starter · #29 ·
Maybe he's using something like the Purdy Colossus?? Holds more paint and I've seen a guy go 2 or 3 strokes without having to load up again. <shrugs>

I spray primarily so...I prime and paint a house in 1 day, solo. lol
 
#30 ·
Well I feel I have to myth-bust Jack, err Brian. Here is a video of him demonstrating him painting with an 18" roller - he claims he slowed down his production for purposes of demonstration - yeah, whatever.

If you pause the movie at time 0:18, he's just applied several feet of paint half-way down the wall, right adjacent to a patch he just previously painted - so he's not painting the entire wall - just the majority of it. If you put a piece of paper to the screen and mark off the distance from the patch he painted all the way to the far corner, and note the width of the roller - you'll find it is 6 and 2/3's as wide as his roller. That turns out to be 120" or 10 feet.

The wall is 8 feet tall so altogether he is painting a section of 80 square feet. The video cuts in at time 0.14 seconds loading up the roller and he's completed the wall at 2:06. So we're talking a scant 8 seconds less than two minutes - basically two minutes if you consider loading up a 1/2 roller sleeve was going on before the video actually cut in.

So we have 80 Square feet being rolled in 2 minutes - or 40 SF per minute. We're expected to believe Jack's err Brian's 'normal' production is 2 and half times faster at the rate of 100 SF per minute. Do you think if you sped up this video by 2-1/2 times that it wouldn't look something outrageously fast like some Charlie Chaplin movie?

So now we have the more believable production rate of 40 SF per minute, or 2,400 Square feet per hour - something more believable within range of my predicted best of 2,000 SF per hour. Not to mention there is no baseboard he has to be careful of - no windows or doors he has to go around and the one outlet in the all that could have obstructed his rolling - has no receptacle! Voila - that would make anyone instantly 10-20% faster than what they normally would be doing for production.

Jack Pauhl is no Super Man when it comes to paint production.

 
#31 ·
plainpainter said:
Well I feel I have to myth-bust Jack, err Brian. Here is a video of him demonstrating him painting with an 18" roller - he claims he slowed down his production for purposes of demonstration - yeah, whatever.

If you pause the movie at time 0:18, he's just applied several feet of paint half-way down the wall, right adjacent to a patch he just previously painted - so he's not painting the entire wall - just the majority of it. If you put a piece of paper to the screen and mark off the distance from the patch he painted all the way to the far corner, and note the width of the roller - you'll find it is 6 and 2/3's as wide as his roller. That turns out to be 120" or 10 feet.

The wall is 8 feet tall so altogether he is painting a section of 80 square feet. The video cuts in at time 0.14 seconds loading up the roller and he's completed the wall at 2:06. So we're talking a scant 8 seconds less than two minutes - basically two minutes if you consider loading up a 1/2 roller sleeve was going on before the video actually cut in.

So we have 80 Square feet being rolled in 2 minutes - or 40 SF per minute. We're expected to believe Jack's err Brian's 'normal' production is 2 and half times faster at the rate of 100 SF per minute. Do you think if you sped up this video by 2-1/2 times that it wouldn't look something outrageously fast like some Charlie Chaplin movie?

So now we have the more believable production rate of 40 SF per minute, or 2,400 Square feet per hour - something more believable within range of my predicted best of 2,000 SF per hour. Not to mention there is no baseboard he has to be careful of - no windows or doors he has to go around and the one outlet in the all that could have obstructed his rolling - has no receptacle! Voila - that would make anyone instantly 10-20% faster than what they normally would be doing for production.

Jack Pauhl is no Super Man when it comes to paint production.

Rolling walls with 18" roller - YouTube
Click to expand...
Myth busting? Paper on screen? Wow you are serious about this stuff Dan.
 
#32 ·
Workaholic said:
Myth busting? Paper on screen? Wow you are serious about this stuff Dan.
Click to expand...
Sean - I just hate liars, they crawl up my skin. It only took me a minute to measure it out and figure the details. Notice the new construction - how many times have you rolled a wall with an 18" and paint didn't even contact in the middle of the roller sleeve due to waviness? Only absolutely perfect situations lead to fast production times. Most places I paint are small cut up rooms with loads of issues. Not to mention I tarp my floors and load up rollers with a less vigor - it's very rare that I can paint over floors that are about to ripped up or are still at the sub-floor stage - and then sure I can load and slap paint on fast.
 
#33 ·
I could see rocking that wall out faster. I think he did slow it down somewhat for purposes of illustration / demonstration. Of course those production rates don't take into account the time needed to cut in the ceiling and corners. And yes they are under optimum conditions. Repaint guys don't have that luxury. However we do use an 18" more often and in part it's due to JP's promoting them. (Sorry Dan). We use the Wooster polar bear for both 9 & 18" most of the time, and I just throw them in a 18" bucket to soak, and they cleanup really easy. If rolling an average bedroom with its own color then I would use a 9", but for bigger spans it makes a lot of sense to bust out the 18". I think between using the polar bear and an 18" you're probably tripling production over an average 9" roller nap. Of course that's just speculation, I have not timed this so no need to myth bust this!
 
#34 ·
Damon T said:
I could see rocking that wall out faster. I think he did slow it down somewhat for purposes of illustration / demonstration. Of course those production rates don't take into account the time needed to cut in the ceiling and corners. And yes they are under optimum conditions. Repaint guys don't have that luxury. However we do use an 18" more often and in part it's due to JP's promoting them. (Sorry Dan). We use the Wooster polar bear for both 9 & 18" most of the time, and I just throw them in a 18" bucket to soak, and they cleanup really easy. If rolling an average bedroom with its own color then I would use a 9", but for bigger spans it makes a lot of sense to bust out the 18". I think between using the polar bear and an 18" you're probably tripling production over an average 9" roller nap. Of course that's just speculation, I have not timed this so no need to myth bust this!
Click to expand...
Big fan of 18" the guys I work with wont touch it, they say they go faster with the 9" I am just ok man see you later.

Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk
 
#37 ·
There's been a turtle hanging around the shop for the past few weeks. This happens every so often, and when it does, I take it as a symbol to slow down a little bit. So, I am currently limiting myself to a production rate of 32sf/hr, regardless of surface or application method.

I would go slower, but I just don't have time.

This turtle is what we in the northeast call a "stinkpot turtle". Stinkpots fart when they feel threatened. It has stopped farting around me, which is a good sign. If you do not believe me about stinkpot turtles, google it.

Here he is, and he is a bit camera shy.
 

Attachments

#38 · (Edited)
My experience has been that setup, prep, cutting in and cleanup are the major time sucks. This is for repaints. Which translates into around 15% total project time for rolling at best in most cases.

Couple this data with other issues like easier switches of color and multi colored schemes in rooms with a 9, I haven't discovered the incredible production disparity that I read about here.

Elements of commercial and nc change my thesis above, but they are totally different subjects.

Edit: I posted this before reading all the funny stuff above.
 
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
About this Discussion
67 Replies
30 Participants
Last post:
Eagle Cap Painter
Professional Painting Contractors Forum
posts
748K
members
43K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to professional painters. Come join the discussion about the industry, safety, finishing, tools, machinery, projects, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Painting Discussions Surface Preparation and Application Business, Marketing, and Sales Tools, Supplies and Equipment New Member Introductions