|
Post by brian H on Feb 18, 2004 15:12:56 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2004 17:10:09 GMT -5
Really is a shame that it's no longer that great powerful motor in there . . . I mean, I'm sure it's still a good fan, but the fact that they put weights in there really pisses me off . . . unless they're iron to help dissapate the heat, in which case they DO allow the motor to run better.
I've heard that the CFM rating dropped, but when I went to look it up, both the site (hunterfan.com) and the writing on the box claims it's still the 9500 cfm, or whatever the old rating was . . . what's the deal?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew G. on Feb 23, 2004 19:32:49 GMT -5
The old CFM was 10,500 and now its a mere 6,900 CFM. I consider that to be an outrage. The least they could have done was to make the motor weigh less but this is rediculous.
|
|
|
Post by brian H on Feb 24, 2004 12:05:04 GMT -5
yes, i agree if it was to be lighter because of the new motor that's fine. so it's lighter(less to fall) hey, at least they didn't make the housing cheap thin stuff...
but to actually put a weight where the windings used to be to simulate that they are still there is sneaky, deceptive, devilish, antifan-like , and all of the above
oh btw dan, you mind sneding me some pics of your fan shop? behfanwiz@yahoo.com
|
|
|
Post by brianH on Feb 24, 2004 12:08:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2004 12:13:04 GMT -5
The old CFM was 10,500 and now its a mere 6,900 CFM. I consider that to be an outrage. The least they could have done was to make the motor weigh less but this is rediculous. Where did they publish these CFM ratings? If it's true, that's very upsetting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2004 12:15:34 GMT -5
but to actually put a weight where the windings used to be to simulate that they are still there is sneaky, deceptive, devilish, antifan-like , and all of the above And I'll say again: are you sure none of the added weight acts as a heat sink? It seems counterproductive to increasing profit margins and lowering production and distribution costs to add extra weight that serves no purpose. I emails you, Brian. And lastly, I most certainly will call angrily to their tech line, and I suggest we all do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew G. on Feb 24, 2004 17:58:39 GMT -5
Up until last year, everyone of Hunter's fan catalogs had the CFM and other performance specs in the back of their books. But now there is no longer any such thing and that really pisses me off.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew G. on Feb 24, 2004 22:33:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2004 20:44:28 GMT -5
A typical Casablanca motor, i.e. the K55 equivalent? If that's the case, then they're not as bad as I thought. K55's and Casablanca's equivalent are damn good motors. So if the new Hunter Originals have motors as good as that in them, well then, they're a step down, but not as tragically bad as I thought.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew G. on Feb 26, 2004 21:35:24 GMT -5
No, it's seriously bad . what i meant was the housing. That is like a Casablanca fan, the motor is something else. Casablanca fans have the XLP 2000 and K55 on older ones. The TEXT Original has a plain little spinner motor. its more like the medium grade Casablanca fans, not good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2004 15:30:15 GMT -5
When I get some money, I'll have to buy a new Original and one of the good ones (same model just a year or so back) to do a side-by-side comparison. Unless someone's already done it? Hey, at least they dont need oil now, lol No, it's seriously bad . what i meant was the housing. That is like a Casablanca fan, the motor is something else. Casablanca fans have the XLP 2000 and K55 on older ones. The TEXT Original has a plain little spinner motor. its more like the medium grade Casablanca fans, not good.
|
|
|
Post by organist89 on Feb 28, 2004 0:01:14 GMT -5
What would a side-by-side comparison tell you that you don't already know? We're all sorry about it...the Original had two things going for it: the way it looked, and the knowledge of the cast-iron with the motor that hadn't changed since 1904. The fan looks different with the new motor in it, and we now know what a shitbang of a motor is in it now. The fan is no different from the "Classic" brand fans of the early 1980's (a copy of the Original)--they used spinner motors.
I don't know if the new fans use oil...if it does, the motor probably doesn't need it...Hunter just left it there to fool us.
Honestly, does Hunter think that we're so stupid that we won't know what they've done to the Original?
And another thing...why did they make it a 5-blade fan (I know that you can use 4, but the pictures in the product brochures show them with 5). I don't really know why any ceiling fan has more than 4 blades. The original always had 4, the world's best ceiling fan (FASCO Charleston) had 4, and the cool old fans in old black-and-white movies had 4. Why did we have to go to 5? I mean, Hunter's sales pitch was that "blah, blah, blah...the Original blah, blah, blah...hasn't changed since 1904"---WHY DID IT HAVE TO HAPPEN?!?!?!
I WANT MY GOD-DAMN 10,500 CFM AND OILED ORIGINAL MOTOR BACK!!! I WANT MY 2-SPEED, WHITE R-52 BACK!!! I WANT 4 BLADES BACK!!! I WANT SOLID CAST IRON BACK!!!! WAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew G on Feb 29, 2004 0:29:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by organist89 on Feb 29, 2004 1:14:08 GMT -5
I have an idea...How about I draft an angry, constructive letter to Hunter. I can post it here. Dan Neuman and others can suggest changes. When we've all agreed upon it, I'll mail it to each one of you guys in turn (at my expense). When we have a shitload of signiatures on it, I'll sent it certified mail to the president of Hunter.
|
|