|
Thread Number: 34489
/ Tag: Brand New Vacuum Cleaners
Tacony Tandem Air Suction Not Too Great |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 372953 5/31/2017 at 04:35 (2,515 days old) by Shrink1982 (Indianapolis) | ||
I have noticed on my Maytag 1200 the suctions through the hose is not all that great. Once I extend the wand and and add the dusting brush I can definitely tell the difference. The suction just isn't on par with my Sebo D4 premium. In fact, the suction is about as good as the suction I get if I hook the hose up to a Kirby, which seems odd considering it has direct suction only. I am not sure if the Maytag underperforms on suction only because the wattage of the machine is split between the two motors resulting in a much less powerful suction motor than what you get on a machine that only has a suction motor. I am not an engineer I just know what my experience has been. I have also noted that the part of the hose that clips into the hose handle, there is a slight leak of air. It is very subtle but I can feel it. It isn't sealed well but I don't blame that for the performance as it is very minimal. I think the suction motor is underpowered. It would be nice if the suction motor would pull more electricity and speed up when the direct air motor and brush roll are turned off. Has only else noticed this on Tacony models with TandemAir?
| ||
Post# 372958 , Reply# 2 5/31/2017 at 06:52 (2,515 days old) by tolivac  (Greenville,NC) |
||
|
I am anxious to get the Tacony Tandem air canister-this may be the best of both worlds-tried a demo one and was quite impressed.The canister motor is more powerful than the clean air one in their uprights.Plus the hose is longer and easier to use on the canister. | ||
| Post# 372981 , Reply# 4 5/31/2017 at 10:29 (2,515 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
 | ||
|
Post# 372984 , Reply# 5 5/31/2017 at 12:54 (2,515 days old) by n0oxy (Saint Louis Missouri, United States) |
||
|
upright and canister combo This does work, but with a good power nozzle canister, you can get the same cleaning on carpets that an upright provides. The key is to have a good power nozzle and have the height adjusted correctly. Mike | ||
| Post# 373063 , Reply# 6 6/1/2017 at 11:50 (2,514 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 373070 , Reply# 7 6/1/2017 at 14:11 (2,514 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada) | ||
Oh brother, here we go AGAIN!!
Stan, you just HAD to go ahead & bring up the topic of whether canister powerheads can seal to carpets again, eh?! Good grief, don't you know when a topic has been talked about & debated so many times it's pointless & non-productive? Seriously. It's time we put that topic to rest PERMANENTLY....it's quite obvious to me certain members will never agree with others, & it's just best to agree to disagree & not bring it up again. As for the Maytag M1200, Riccar & Simplicity tandem air uprights having lower hose suction/airflow than average....I have to wonder if part of the reason why it was designed this way was so that the airflow from the direct air motor & the airflow from the clean air motor would be balanced. So that the clean air motor's suction/airflow wouldn't be so strong that it might overpower the direct air motor & possibly cause damage? Just a guess here. And, just in case anyone is curious, the suction/airflow the clean air motor on the Tandem Air uprights produce would be considered average by the industry. Most "lower end", "disposable" or "retail" brands, like Hoover, Eureka & Dirt Devil, historically those clean air uprights have produced 60" waterlift. It's only when you buy a premium vac shop brand, such as the Panasonic/Kenmore uprights, Tacony uprights, Samsung, etc, that you start to see higher waterlift ratings, most of those brands are about 70" waterlift, sometimes as high as 80"-85". Rob | ||
| Post# 373071 , Reply# 8 6/1/2017 at 14:39 (2,514 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
I agree with you Rob. I think it's to do with getting a balance between the direct air and clean air motor. It's a good design but personally I'd still prefer a single motor.
The direct air Riccar canister PN that will be available soon does interest me a lot. I will be interested to see how well it performs. | ||
| Post# 373146 , Reply# 9 6/3/2017 at 10:30 (2,512 days old) by electromatik (Taylorsville, North Carolina, U.S.A.) | ||
|
@sptyks Your claim is demonstrably false. | ||
| Post# 373147 , Reply# 10 6/3/2017 at 11:23 (2,512 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
electromatik: | ||
| Post# 373177 , Reply# 11 6/3/2017 at 20:09 (2,512 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada) | ||
|
Stan - Oh really? No, you're not right at all! If the video you're using as your proof was with a canister vacuum using a full size powerhead, not the compact Miele powerhead, you could say it's a fair comparison. But those compact powerheads can only clean low pile carpet effectively, where there isn't a lot of carpet nap to brush through. You can't compare that to a full size upright with a full size powerhead that can clean ALL carpet types effectively.
Also, Mikko is using sawdust in his test, not normal dirt from normal vacuuming that he could have collected & spread out. Sawdust would clog a vacuum bag much more quickly than normal dirt. There's a reason vacuum collectors have criticized Consumer Reports in their testing of vacuums for using fine talc & sawdust to replicate dirt in their tests. Therefore, the 2 vacuums would lose their airflow much more quickly than normal, & is NOT a true reflection of the cleaning results one could expect using either machine. Rob | ||
| Post# 373191 , Reply# 12 6/4/2017 at 03:48 (2,512 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
Good points Rob.
I would still like to see a canister/cylinder cleaner that can match the performance of the Kirby. My MD central vac might well do. It's has very high suction and airflow. I can feel it pulling the dirt up deep down into the carpet pile. I use it with a Sebo ET1 which is a very effective PN. | ||
| Post# 373192 , Reply# 13 6/4/2017 at 06:01 (2,511 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
Kirby vs canister vacuums
I don't think that there is a canister vacuum cleaner what can match the Kirby in a deep cleaning. However some come quite close. For example my Nilfisk GM80 with the full size Wessel Werk EBK 340 ph comes very close.
Now it's important to know, that the Nilfisk pulls 109 cfm from the hose end. I would say that it is pretty impressive for a clean air motor system. I haven't done direct comparison video between those two, but maybe I should. Here is my latest deep clean comparison video where Kirby won. Note that the Lux Royal had a small ph in this test. It pulls 104 cfm from the hose end. | ||
|
Post# 373193 , Reply# 14 6/4/2017 at 06:15 (2,511 days old) by tolivac (Greenville,NC) |
||
|
Hmmm-Maybe I should try my Volt powernozzle with my Nilfisk GM 80 canister vacuum!Stangely---My Nilfisk came from the trade in pile in the Kirby salesmans van!The Nilfisk I have came with an air powered powernozzle-could see how the Kirby could beat that one. | ||
| Post# 373194 , Reply# 15 6/4/2017 at 06:34 (2,511 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373205 , Reply# 17 6/4/2017 at 10:31 (2,511 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
Rob,
The results of Mike's latest video prove once again that upright vacuums, especially Kirby, are far superior in cleaning performance. to any canister/power nozzle combination.
I have a 10 amp Royal Everlast 8300 that out cleans my Kirby Sentria. I would like to see any canister with PN even come close to matching the performance of my Royal.
~Stan
| ||
| Post# 373211 , Reply# 18 6/4/2017 at 12:22 (2,511 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373220 , Reply# 19 6/4/2017 at 18:29 (2,511 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
1000 Airwatts!? | ||
| Post# 373222 , Reply# 20 6/4/2017 at 19:26 (2,511 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada) | ||
|
Stan, let me make this clear - The ONLY uprights ever put on the market, in my opinion, that can come ANYWHERE close to matching or exceeding a modern post-1990 canister vacuum's performance is the Tacony Tandem Air uprights, a post-1990 Royal Metal upright, or any Kirby made after 1980.
You cannot possibly claim that ALL uprights clean better than canisters. For starters, the motors in clean air uprights, whether bagged or bagless, produce less suction & airflow than canister motors. Forget how well the hose, wand & powerhead connections are sealed on a canister....the fact of the matter is, a modern, post-1990 canister vacuum's motor produces more suction & airflow than a competitor's upright from the same year. That easily overcomes any airflow losses & makes it clean better. And as for direct air uprights being superior? Well, the ONLY ones that actually work & are effective are the bell nozzle shaped uprights, like Royal & Kirby. All the others that have the fan & belt pulley placed at opposite ends, like 8 lb uprights & Hoover Elite, Dirt Devil Featherlite, Eureka Bravo, etc....They initially have good suction & airflow, but lose it very quickly with as little as 1/4 or 1/3 full bag of dirt. Same thing with the Hoover Convertible/Eureka F&G style uprights, & they also have the added disadvantage of burning thru their round belts much faster than uprights that use flat belts. Rob | ||
| Post# 373232 , Reply# 22 6/4/2017 at 23:28 (2,511 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Everyone, Please Be Careful When Quoting Specs
As far as I can tell people keep quoting RAW motor specs that do not represent cleaning power at the end of the hose. As an example, pictured below is an 8.4" double stage Ametek motor that can do 142 CFM at the motor base with a 2" opening. When that opening get reduced by the typical 1.125" hose, the airflow drops like a stone to 106 CFM. Now add handles, wands, u-joints required to actually get the airflow to a carpet nozzle and you can see just how much airflow loss is apparent.
The best upright I have measured so far is a Kirby Sentria II. Comparing apples to apples, the base of the motor tests at 177 CFM (with a HEPA bag) and then gets reduced to 137 CFM at the nozzle with the brush roll spinning. Bill 
| ||
| Post# 373248 , Reply# 23 6/5/2017 at 10:41 (2,510 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
My Mistake... Rob,
My apologies for any confusion. You are correct. I DID NOT intend to claim that ALL uprights deep clean better than a canister with PN. I meant to specify just Direct or Tandem Air uprights made after 2000, most specifically G series Kirby's and 9 and 10 amp Royals.
That being said, it did appear to me, I could be wrong, that the black upright vacuum in Mike's latest video is a Bypass air machine which did perform better than his canister with PN.
| ||
| Post# 373258 , Reply# 25 6/5/2017 at 13:28 (2,510 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
You are correct the single motor produces 700 airwatts but there are twin motors that produce over 1000 airwatts and 200 CFM.
Yes of course airflow will be lost through the hose but the suction and airflow is still very strong and my carpets look extremely clean after using the central vac. The results are more than good enough for me 😊 | ||
| Post# 373259 , Reply# 26 6/5/2017 at 13:32 (2,510 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
I will be getting a twin motor central vac at some point.
Mike I think having 2 motors will be of benefit.Yew there will be a loss of airflow but if you're starting off with over 1000 airwatts and 200 CFM there's going to be more suction and airflow at the end of the hose than a single motor I would think. | ||
| Post# 373305 , Reply# 29 6/6/2017 at 02:58 (2,510 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
We use 240v in the UK as standard.
The MD Silent Master is excellent. I was thinking of getting the model that used to be the S5 with 2 motors. That is extremely powerful with 950 airwatts close to 200 cfm. It's also quiet at 62db. They now have a true seal bag which is a closed bag that attaches to all 3 inlets and is still tapered like the open bag for maximum airflow. | ||
| Post# 373307 , Reply# 30 6/6/2017 at 05:14 (2,509 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
Kirby vs canister vacuum cleaner (deep clean test) | ||
| Post# 373316 , Reply# 33 6/6/2017 at 09:35 (2,509 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373335 , Reply# 34 6/6/2017 at 12:14 (2,509 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada) | ||
|
Stan & Bill | ||
| Post# 373336 , Reply# 35 6/6/2017 at 12:48 (2,509 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
Rex:
At 120 volts a 12 amp (1440 watts) vacuum is plenty of power to clean any home. Remember that a 12 amp 1440 watt vacuum at 120 volts is only drawing 6 amps at 240 volts. The wattage stays the same while the amperage is cut in half at 240 volts.
Marcus:
To me, it looks like the amount of rice in the glasses at the end of the test is pretty much exactly the same meaning the Nilfisk matched the performance of the Gsix which has 121 CFM. However the Sentria II and Avalir have 137 CFM and my 10 amp Royal 8300 has over 144 CFM so it is highly doubtful that the Nilfisk could keep up with any of those 3 upright vacuums.
| ||
| Post# 373337 , Reply# 36 6/6/2017 at 13:26 (2,509 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373339 , Reply# 37 6/6/2017 at 13:41 (2,509 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
Rob,
There's no Crow on my diet! As I said in Reply #35, the Nilfisk only matched the performance of the Gsix which is a 17 year old machine that has only 121 CFM. I still believe the Nilfisk would be no match for the much more modern Sentria II, Avalir, (137CFM) or the Royal 8300 (144CFM). So you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Besides, that model of Nilfisk is pretty rare. How many people do you know besides Mike that actually own one. Do you actually think the average Miele or Sebo canister with any PN can keep up with the Avalir or Royal 8300?
~Stan
| ||
| Post# 373340 , Reply# 38 6/6/2017 at 13:43 (2,509 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Rob,
Let's take a look at what Mike actually accomplished in this video:
1) With two very, very, very slow completed passes on high, loose pile (and probably rubber backed, non-flow through) carpet, rice was vacuumed up. 2) The G6 is about 120 CFM at the nozzle and I'm guessing that the Nilfisk is about 88 CFM at the nozzle based on Mike's previous hose measurements (108 CFM). 3) The weaker Nilfisk was then used as a reference to vacuum up the remaining rice with 4 completed passes with a bag saver installed. 4) Results were shown and the Nilfisk picked up the same leftover rice on both sides of the carpet. I could easily duplicate these results with any number of machines when using the weaker CFM one as "the reference." Mike doesn't have a Kirby dirt meter yet so he can't show the results using the Kirby as the final reference machine. It is also possible that Mike's rice test doesn't require anything very powerful to clean his carpet well. Anything over 80 CFM might just be wasted. The bag saver also reduces airflow considerably, so when he installed that on the Nilfisk, the CFM probably dropped to about 50 CFM at the nozzle. So Rob, are you ready to jump on the bandwagon that believes a 50 CFM reference canister can prove a 120 CFM upright as equal or even pointless? I'm certainly not. Looks like I'll have to make a few more videos on my channel... Bill | ||
| Post# 373341 , Reply# 39 6/6/2017 at 13:45 (2,509 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
View Full Size
| ||
| Post# 373342 , Reply# 40 6/6/2017 at 14:02 (2,509 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373343 , Reply# 41 6/6/2017 at 14:07 (2,509 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373353 , Reply# 42 6/6/2017 at 15:59 (2,509 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Mark,
Different carpet types require different machines and I'm sure many people are very happy with the results of whatever type of machine they have. For cleaning various surface debris, my channel has shown that 50 CFM is usually acceptable...except for fine particulate.
So far, I've discovered that high CFM models are largely useless for rubber backed mats...unless you have someone standing on the other end. For medium pile flow through carpet, high CFM coupled with at least medium agitation works best to deep clean. Since most people (Vacuumlanders excepted of course) don't care or know about deep cleaning, they wait until they hire a truck mount rig and then gasp at how much lighter and brighter their carpets become, all the while still not understanding that if they had a better vacuum, the difference would be minimal. Bill | ||
| Post# 373360 , Reply# 43 6/6/2017 at 17:08 (2,509 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
Now this is getting interesting.
Using Nilfisk with the bag saver to vacuum remains it picked up from the both sides what it was able to pick up. So how it was able to pick up same amount from the Kirby side, if Kirby did better job? I still think, that the Kirby G6 is better overall, but Nilfisk came VERY close. I didn't do this test to cause any conflicts. Some thoughts: - this wasn't very accurate test but good enough to show the differences - Wessel Werk ph has a smaller brushroll opening = better airflow density - my carpet is flow through (see the picture) - I have ordered the dirt meter (it should be here soon) - I said in the test that I am not yet convinced - My Nilfisk has a quite rare two stage GMD motor (rating label says type GMI) it means industrial model - not many canister vacuums can pull 108 cfm from the hose end | ||
| Post# 373366 , Reply# 44 6/6/2017 at 18:21 (2,509 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Mike,
It's good to be skeptical! :)
But it the meantime, since you have flow through carpet, wouldn't it be great to see some flour under the carpet tests? Some future testing suggestions: 1) Unless you're attempting to prove something rather special, keep the vacuum passes down to 1 or 2 maximum since that's all most people would do anyway. 2) Try to vacuum at a normal speed. Either too fast or too slow could skew test results. 3) As you can plainly see in my videos, even 50 CFM and a soft brush roll can pickup rice. Oatmeal is too easy as well. Small particle tests can be aggravating to setup but aren't most people interested in how their machine does with fine dust or something similar? To that end, I'm looking onto obtaining some colored particles like sand, etc. and then creating a test that showcases that possibly along with flour. I'm always rather dismayed at how some people see a video and jump to all sorts of conclusions. Enjoy your new dirt meter when it arrives. I also have one I use periodically. Bill | ||
| Post# 373382 , Reply# 45 6/7/2017 at 00:20 (2,509 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
Bag saver loss of airflow
Very good points there!
I have already made a video how much the bag saver drops the airflow. It's quite dramatic. In the video it drops from 6 (92 cfm) to something like 45-50 cfm. No wonder why bagless vacuums has a much weaker airflow. To get more accurate results I have to wait dirt meter to arrive. | ||
| Post# 373387 , Reply# 47 6/7/2017 at 03:54 (2,509 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
Flour UNDER the carpet vacuuming (Kirby, Nilfisk & Shark) | ||
| Post# 373392 , Reply# 48 6/7/2017 at 08:19 (2,508 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373400 , Reply# 49 6/7/2017 at 09:43 (2,508 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
I am neutral
Well all comments are welcome for me 😊
For these rugs I keep using the Kirby, because it's so light to push thanks to the techdrive. Canisters (Nilfisk or others) for anything else. But if would had only one vacuum. It would be the Nilfisk or Lux Royal. Now people really see (hopefully) Nilfisk potential ☺ | ||
| Post# 373401 , Reply# 50 6/7/2017 at 10:11 (2,508 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373402 , Reply# 51 6/7/2017 at 10:16 (2,508 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Great job Mike,
May I ask for the nozzle measurements for the Nilfisk and Shark? I want to finish the interpretation of the results so all can understand your flour tests.
Kirby G6 Nozzle Area: 14.25" x 2.375" = 33.8 square inches Nilfisk Nozzle Area: Need Measurements From Mike Shark Nozzle Area: Need Measurements From Mike As a preview (and guessing based on his video visuals, I'll take a wild guess that both the Nilfisk and the Shark have much smaller openings than the Kirby, say 22 square inches for the Nilfisk and 18 square inches for the Shark (both of these are guesses at the moment). The CFM density for the G6 is 120 CFM / 33.8 sq. in. = 3.55 CFM per sq. in. The CFM density for the Nilfisk might be 88 CFM / 22 sq. in. = 4.00 CFM per sq. in. The CFM density for the Shark might be 55 CFM / 18 sq. in. = 3.06 CFM per sq. in. Since Mike's carpet has much larger holes, the Shark with it's low CFM was able to get some flour. So Mike's weave might just begin to respond to a 55 CFM machine. My medium pile carpet backing is much more closed off and only starts to respond to about 75 CFM, anything lower just doesn't pickup unless you have an extreme brush roll with ridiculous agitation (Simplicity). In two slow passes, the Nilfisk is able to come fairly close to the Kirby partly because the CFM is fairly high but also because the CFM density is high. That's the upside. The downside is that with the nozzle being significantly smaller, it will take significantly longer to vacuum large areas. For example, if the Kirby takes 40 minutes, the Nilfisk make take 60 minutes to finish the same square footage. Some people will say that the Nilfisk is insignificantly different than the Kirby. I'll ask them this question then: If a vacuum constantly leaves 2% behind when you use it, how much will accumulate over time? Since everyone is in a hurry these days and vacuums as fast as possible and no more than 1-2 passes in one area, what will eventually be the result? Much thanks again Mike for this video. And your bare floors look much better than my concrete ones. Bill | ||
| Post# 373403 , Reply# 52 6/7/2017 at 10:16 (2,508 days old) by Ultralux88 (Denver, Colorado) | ||
I got the 15ft hose and tool set for mine
Its the non-stretch long hose that they sell for the clean air uprights, but instead of the tapered cuff on the machine end, its got the same end as the onboard stretch hose. I've found I get far better performance using it this way for tools. It won't really turn a turbo brush well on the stretch hose, but it'll quite nicely run it on the 15ft hose, longer, BUT it has a larger inner diameter, and a scooter inside than the stretch hose.
| ||
| Post# 373404 , Reply# 53 6/7/2017 at 10:23 (2,508 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373420 , Reply# 54 6/7/2017 at 16:36 (2,508 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
Bill
After watching your flour under the carpet tests I agree, that my carpet was easier for the vacuums. For me differences in the nozzle sizes doesn't really matter (small areas) Here are the nozzle measurements and my cfm ratings: Wessel Werk ph 11.8 x 1.8 inches Shark 9.8 x 1.6 inches These are from the hose end. Nilfisk 108 cfm Shark 62 cfm Thank you for calculating these things for me! | ||
| Post# 373426 , Reply# 55 6/7/2017 at 19:19 (2,508 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Thanks for the nozzle specs Mike
Updated Nozzle Areas:
Kirby G6: 14.25" x 2.375" = 33.8 square inches Wessel Werk: 11.8" x 1.8" = 21.2 square inches Shark: 9.8" x 1.6" = 15.7 square inches So the CFM density calculations become: Kirby G6 is 120 CFM / 33.8 sq. in. = 3.55 CFM per sq. in. Wessel Werk is 88 CFM / 21.2 sq. in. = 4.15 CFM per sq. in. Shark is 51 CFM (Est.) / 15.7 sq. in. = 3.25 CFM per sq. in. Mike, my 51 nozzle CFM estimate for the Shark comes from examining my growing database of bag-less uprights and using an average percentage drop from hose end to nozzle end. CONCLUSIONS: Since Mike's rug is not only shag (low density pile), but also has very large flow-through holes as seen in his videos, very, very low CFM machines can pull small particulate from the bottom fairly easily. And since the pile is not dense on top, rice can be pulled from low CFM bag saver crippled machines. For those who think the Nilfisk/Wessel Werk combo nearly matched the Kirby consider this: The G6 picked up more fine particulate over a 33.8/21.2 => 59% larger area. And it did it with about 14% lower CFM density. This is a HUGE difference when you look at the mathematics. As far as the Shark goes, the only way this low CFM machine can barely deep clean at all is because of the very tiny nozzle size. Dyson has pulled this trick with the DC25 and DC65. Dyson DC25 has 57 nozzle CFM and a density of 3.37 (tiny nozzle) Dyson DC65 has 52 nozzle CFM and a density of 2.33 (large nozzle) Hopefully, this clears up many questions and observations regarding Mike's flour video. Bill | ||
| Post# 373438 , Reply# 56 6/8/2017 at 00:12 (2,508 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373439 , Reply# 57 6/8/2017 at 06:11 (2,507 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373447 , Reply# 58 6/8/2017 at 10:40 (2,507 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Mark, | ||
| Post# 373449 , Reply# 59 6/8/2017 at 11:00 (2,507 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373451 , Reply# 60 6/8/2017 at 11:24 (2,507 days old) by Kirbysthebest (Midwest) | ||
|
Why Chocolate Chip? Do you have something against Oatmeal Raisin? Oreos. you could have Oreos.
| ||
| Post# 373457 , Reply# 61 6/8/2017 at 12:40 (2,507 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373465 , Reply# 62 6/8/2017 at 14:49 (2,507 days old) by Kirbysthebest (Midwest) | ||
|
We have two votes for Oreo. | ||
|
Post# 373474 , Reply# 63 6/8/2017 at 17:44 (2,507 days old) by vacuumlad1650 (Wauponsee, IL) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 373477 , Reply# 64 6/8/2017 at 18:45 (2,507 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
It's Settled Then... | ||
| Post# 373491 , Reply# 65 6/8/2017 at 22:29 (2,507 days old) by Kirbysthebest (Midwest) | ||
|
What kind of pizza? | ||
|
Post# 373492 , Reply# 66 6/8/2017 at 22:32 (2,507 days old) by vacuumlad1650 (Wauponsee, IL) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 373493 , Reply# 67 6/8/2017 at 22:33 (2,507 days old) by vacuumlad1650 (Wauponsee, IL) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 373497 , Reply# 68 6/9/2017 at 00:09 (2,507 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada) | ||
|
Ha! I knew it! I am claiming victory on this once and for all!
Bill - We now have 2 videos, done by another Vacuumland member who has NOTHING to gain over this, that has proven you & Stan are WRONG. You can make claims & deny all you want. You, Bill, are grasping at straws here, & you know it. I think it's about time to give in, admit defeat, & admit you were wrong on this topic. And, might I also add, being foolish for making such a claim without being smart enough to test a modern canister to validate your own statements. Make all the claims you want about Mikko's rug being low density pile & large flow through holes, that's a bunch of BS & you know it! And again, claiming the Kirby picked up all that fine particulate with a nozzle opening 59% larger & 14% less CFM density. If you're going to use claims like that to prove a direct air upright is so much better, consider this....not only did that Nilfisk canister leave only about 1% or 2% more flour behind, it did it with (according to you) less CFM, AND to boot losing some of that CFM through the hose, wand & powerhead connections. I find that impressive in itself. As for your claims on Mikko's first test with rice....Well, I would take a machine that has only 50 CFM with the Bag Saver attachment. Your Hoover TurboPower 5000 surface debris test video shows that you can still have decent cleaning with low CFM. Even Mikko's final video with the flour under the rug shows a Shark upright with (according to Bill) 51 CFM, possibly slightly higher, cleans just as well. So, yes, I will jump on the bandwagon that a low 50 CFM machine can clean just as well as a 120 CFM machine. Bill, you seem to forget there are numerous other factors at play BESIDES high CFM that determine how well a vacuum deep cleans: Bag & bag chamber design, nozzle design & how stiff the brushes are, how restrictive the exhaust filter is, etc. As for using the Bag Saver on the Nilfisk being inaccurate to determine how much was really left behind, & the Kirby with a Dirt Meter installed being a more accurate way to determine what was left behind due to it's higher CFM rating? Well, that might hold true if the Kirby Dirt Meter pads were made of HEPA Cloth material, not paper. The Dirt Meter, due to it's paper pad, even when the pad is clean & new, drastically reduces it's performance; I would say it drops the airflow on a Kirby Avalir from 137 CFM down to somewhere around 95-100 CFM. Also, it's a well known fact the Dirt Meter & paper pad robs a Kirby of it's performance while in use....go ahead & watch a couple YouTube videos of it in use, & it's clear how quickly the Kirby loses it's power. Therefore, using the Kirby with a Dirt Meter & paper pad installed would NOT be a accurate way of picking up the rest of the dirt left behind from each carpet, & to determine which vacuum cleaned better. In fact, despite the lower airflow the Nilfisk with the Bag Saver installed would have, it would actually be superior for this type of test, since there is NO filter to clog whatsoever. Finally, I think one thing that everyone has ignored here, is that Mikko's Nilfisk canister is actually a pretty old, outdated model by today's standards, I believe it is most likely from the late 90's/early 2000's by the look of it. And, it is only average power at best....the current Nilfisk Museum Vacuum line the company currently produces only produces about 85" to 90" waterlift, which would explain Mikko saying it pulls 109 CFM, a current Miele C3 canister in comparison pulls 100" waterlift & 145 CFM. So, obviously a newer model canister, such as a Miele, Riccar/Simplicity, Sebo, Lindhaus, Aerus, Perfect or Kenmore would fare much better in the flour under the rug test. Bill, even your old Electrolux Olympia fared decently in your own flour under the rug test....if it had a PN5 or PN6 with the new style 10 degree brushroll, it would have fared even better, & most likely would have aced your test. Stan - As for your assertion that the Kirby G6 is outdated & having only 121 CFM, & the Sentria II & Avalir being more modern & having 137 CFM & your Royal 8300 having 144 CFM? Well, that would be easily overcome if Mikko had flipped up the headlight & inserts a small pocket-sized flat blade screwdriver to activate the top speed switch & make the G6 run in HIGH tool speed mode during testing. That HIGH speed should EASILY make the G6 match or exceed the Sentria II, Avalir or Royal 8300's performance levels. The only variable we don't know, & only Mikko can answer this, is whether his Kirby G6 has the older chevron brushroll or the newer oblique style brushroll with stiffer bristles. But, again, that too is easily overcome if Mikko puts the brushroll endcaps in the 3rd wear setting so they provide the maximum agitation that brushroll can allow. So, that blows your claim of the Kirby G6 being outdated & not a fair comparison to a modern Kirby right out of the water. Besides, let's be realistic - the average consumer is likely going to have a older Kirby G Series machine to use at home anyways. So ya know what boys? At the end of the day, the ONLY thing you have proven is you both are a couple of stubborn old men, standing behind old, outdated technology, & making ridiculous claims. And, when proven wrong, come up with petty excuses to defend yourselves & make yourselves look good. Bill, you want to redeem yourself & those idiotic claims you have made? Then put your money where your mouth is, buy yourself a modern canister & do the test on YOUR rug which you claim would produce more accurate test results with the under the flour test. I DARE YOU to go ahead, get a Miele or Riccar/Simplicity canister that is a current model, & prove me wrong! We all know here you don't have the guts to do it, because you KNOW I am right & you'll wind up with egg on your face. Rob | ||
| Post# 373501 , Reply# 69 6/9/2017 at 00:23 (2,507 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada) | ||
|
Stan & Bill | ||
| Post# 373502 , Reply# 70 6/9/2017 at 00:37 (2,507 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada) | ||
|
I have a few more constraints for Mikko's future testing:
1. There must be a full moon out, & it must also be raining & thunder & lightning. 2. There must be a episode of Jerry Springer & Maury airing at the exact same time across the world, with cheating couples & baby paternity tests being the topics. 3. There must be a Scotsman wearing a plaid kilt present to witness the tests. Rob | ||
| Post# 373503 , Reply# 71 6/9/2017 at 01:20 (2,507 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH) | ||
|
Rob,
I may or may not respond to your rant tomorrow as many of your claims simply don't make sense and personally I am amazed that you have gone on the attack like you have something to gain. Very childish behavior this "old man" thinks.
I'll leave you to chew on this then. You claim that a Miele C3 has 145 CFM. That is incorrect and I have posted this elsewhere. Usable airflow from a very expensive C3 is in the 85-89 CFM range at the nozzle. I have spent much of my free time doing something that no one in the entire world has done as far as I can tell. Build an airflow box and do actual measurements. Decode the infamous Baird meter and introduce the idea of airflow density. If you don't like seeing the truth and having a scientific discussion, you don't have to engage in the conversation. I have no problem at all leaving Vacuumland and keeping my journey to create a database of extensive measurements to myself. Let's see what others have to say about your rant my friend. Bill 
| ||
| Post# 373513 , Reply# 73 6/9/2017 at 05:43 (2,506 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
Just few notes.
My Nilfisk GM80 is made in 1985. Motor is twin fan 1100w (9 amps) I have measured the airflow and suction from the hose end. Those results are: 108 cfm and 2400 mmH2O of suction (waterlift over 100) Sebo and Miele cfm specs are measured straight from the motor. So those are unrealistic numbers. My rice pick up test was a deep clean test, because my rug is high pile and I worked rice in to the pile. After that rice was mostly invisible. My experience has shown that especially the sawdust is very hard to clean from my rug. Even Kirby has difficulties with it.
View Full Size
| ||
| Post# 373520 , Reply# 74 6/9/2017 at 09:43 (2,506 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373522 , Reply# 75 6/9/2017 at 10:17 (2,506 days old) by Kirbysthebest (Midwest) | ||
|
I agree with Marcus and Hans Use what you like the most.
The BEST vacuum, is the one that you like and that you use. In the end they all suck dirt off the floor and capture it in some manner.
Pizza--Crispy crust, lots of sprinkle cheese.
| ||
| Post# 373524 , Reply# 76 6/9/2017 at 10:32 (2,506 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
Kirby dirt meter | ||
| Post# 373525 , Reply# 77 6/9/2017 at 11:56 (2,506 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
Well Rob,
I have never seen so much HOT AIR expelled by one sore loser such as yourself. I think there is enough Hot Air in that desperate long winded reply to fill a Hot Air Balloon that would lift four people for a long ride. I would have to agree with Bill that your long winded, non factual reply was very childish indeed. By the way, I own a Kirby Dirtmeter and the pads ARE NOT made of paper, they are made of the same filterette material used to make HEPA bags. They DO clog quickly and are designed to be used to make only 2 or 3 short passes before examining the results and then replacing the pad.
We all use the vacuum cleaners we like the best, but Bill's extensive tests not only help to satisfy our curiosity by informing us collectors how other brands of cleaners perform, but he also provides valuable information to anyone who is researching which machine to purchase for use in their own home or business.
So Bill, I hope you will continue to do these tests on more and more machines as you are able to acquire them and continue to post the results here on Vacuumland. I for one have subscribed to your Vaclab channel on You Tube and enjoy watching your videos very much.
| ||
| Post# 373527 , Reply# 78 6/9/2017 at 12:05 (2,506 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
Mike,
I am glad you got your Dirtmeter. I have owned one for a couple of years now. You will have fun retesting all of your vacuum cleaners and using your Kirby Gsix with Dirtmeter to find out which ones have the best cleaning performance.
I will look forward to watching any new videos you make using your new Kirby Dirtmeter.
| ||
| Post# 373530 , Reply# 79 6/9/2017 at 12:49 (2,506 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373533 , Reply# 80 6/9/2017 at 13:41 (2,506 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 373534 , Reply# 81 6/9/2017 at 13:47 (2,506 days old) by vacuumlad1650 (Wauponsee, IL) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 373535 , Reply# 82 6/9/2017 at 13:49 (2,506 days old) by sebo4me (Cardiff) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373547 , Reply# 83 6/9/2017 at 18:32 (2,506 days old) by kenkart () | ||
|
I have a Nilfisk GS-90, as well as a 70 and 80, I need to bring the 90in, it has a PN setup.Its a very fine machine. | ||
| Post# 373717 , Reply# 85 6/12/2017 at 14:59 (2,503 days old) by Mike811 (Finland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 373763 , Reply# 86 6/13/2017 at 06:44 (2,502 days old) by Shrink1982 (Indianapolis) | ||
|
Response to Rob | ||
| Post# 373768 , Reply# 87 6/13/2017 at 07:58 (2,502 days old) by Shrink1982 (Indianapolis) | ||
|
Volt Nozzle for Central Vac
I can see how the battery powered Volt nozzle would be more convenient but why not have a PN that plugs into an outlet? That takes care of the issue with the hose not having electricity. I realize not everyone wants to plug their power nozzle in but I would rather do so than use a battery operated PN. Batteries die fast and don't always provide as much power as a mains powered PN.
| ||
| Post# 373769 , Reply# 88 6/13/2017 at 08:09 (2,502 days old) by Shrink1982 (Indianapolis) | ||
|
Getting Along and Forum
As a side note, it would be nice if we could reply directly to someone's post and have it quote the post. It can be difficult to read through the entire thread to figure out what was responded to.
At the end of the day, these are just vacuums. The amount of emotional energy that gets put into these posts can really put one off. There is almost a fear of getting attacked if you say something someone may not agree with. Doesn't seem worth the hassle to argue over any of this. What I have found is the way to really keep my carpets clean is to vacuum more frequently, vacuum slowly and go over strokes, and vacuum in different directions on certain days. Just by doing this, I am not pulling much out of my carpets anymore. I would use a basic bagless vacuum to see how well my vacuums were performing and was surprised how much came up after I used my Sebo or Kirby. With the Maytag, I vacuum more thoroughly, more often, and much more slowly and there is no longer any fluff/hair that comes out of the carpet. I get a bit of dust which is expected as no vacuum gets it all. Whatever vacuum you use, if you follow my advice, I think your carpets will be pretty clean (with exception to certain vacuums that are very poor). Vacuuming regularly and thoroughly helps keep dirt and dust from becoming embedded in the carpet in the first place. | ||
| Post# 373770 , Reply# 89 6/13/2017 at 08:13 (2,502 days old) by Shrink1982 (Indianapolis) | ||
|
Tacony and Central Vacs
Correct me if I am wrong but, generally speaking, the suction on a central vac tends to be pretty good, so wouldn't a PN with a direct air fan or motor be moot as the higher suction would negate the extra airflow created? Doesn't a vacuum that uses both a direct air motor and bypass motor need to be carefully synced in order to ensure optimal airflow and suction is maintained? Wouldn't simply adding a PN with a direct air motor or fan mess with the balance?
| ||
| Forum Index: | 
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}