Thread Number: 35013  /  Tag: Recent Vacuum Cleaners from past 20 years
More airflow tests.
[Down to Last]

Vacuumland's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 377459   8/29/2017 at 18:38 by blackheart (North Dakota)        

I think it'd be better for me to stick to a single thread rather than making a new one for each machine. I feel like i've been spamming the forum lately.

So fresh off the box we have a Shark UV795 31 Powered Rotator lift away. In the 2nd picture we can see that when placed on the box it has nearly 1/3 of it's original waterlift. Machines lose a lot of power at the nozzle.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size

Post# 377580 , Reply# 1   8/30/2017 at 08:54 by Wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        
Almost 59 CFM, That's Towards The Top

wyaple's profile picture
Of the heap for a bagless machine. So you also were able to get suction measurements at the power nozzle, eh? Very cool! I'll have to build another air box that can do more than just measure airflow.


Post# 377591 , Reply# 2   8/30/2017 at 14:24 by DrSnuggle (Sweden Stockholm)        
Where to buy?

drsnuggle's profile picture
I would like to do these airflow tests, but where do I buy the tools for it?
The Kirby airflow meter for instance (I do not mind having to buy it from the US)?

I had this idea 6 month ago and I bought an anemometer (I think that is the name) but it was to weak and just shattered when coming close to the wand. Long time ago I read a post on this site with some guy that had built a carbon box for these type of measures (I was so inspired and impressed)and I tried and failed myself. Please, some hints. I will not use it in any videos, but may post it here if I just get the hang of it.

Post# 377592 , Reply# 3   8/30/2017 at 15:03 by Wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        
You have to make your own airflow/airwatts box

wyaple's profile picture
And then grab yourself an anemometer. Check out my YouTube channel VacLab for how to videos.


Post# 377601 , Reply# 4   8/30/2017 at 16:24 by DrSnuggle (Sweden Stockholm)        
My motto:

drsnuggle's profile picture
There is no shame in fame. Please Bill post the video.
Instead of having me (or readers of this post) search.

Where to buy the Kirby meter is still a puzzle. A link would be great.

Post# 377614 , Reply# 5   8/30/2017 at 19:19 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Miele S7 Freshair

Another surprise i thought it would have had more flow, but it has a very large amount of twists and turns in it's airpath. The reason i took readings on both smooth and low pile is due to the suction motor automatically turning itself down when the brushroll is active listening to the sound of the unit and messing with the speed control i've found that it's carpet speed is about low pile max. I also think it's kinda funny that the motor was running at 1165 watts, so the motor should be the same as the canisters? 1200w vortex and yet the airpath of the machines majorly effects the flow.

  View Full Size
Post# 377616 , Reply# 6   8/30/2017 at 19:44 by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        
Another Airflow Shocker...

wyaple's profile picture
I'm stunned that such an expensive machine still has no better nozzle airflow than a typical bag-less cheapie. I love the look and features of the S7, but your tests reveal that Miele has produced an expensive package that's nothing more than a look and features.


I have one request. Do you remember when you gave me some Miele C3 Baird meter readings a while back? Is it possible to get the nozzle airflow tests on that C3? I would like to see how close my predictions were.


Post# 377617 , Reply# 7   8/30/2017 at 19:56 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Miele C3

It's possible yes, I was going to wait until i finally got my C3 brilliant but that's months away yet. When people look at Miele i often tell them right off the bat that the canisters are more powerful than the uprights. I mean I like my Fresh air it's a very nice vacuum, the bare floor pick up is fantastic, the carpet cleaning hasn't dissapointed me either, But i have a feeling that the brilliant will outdo the S7.

Post# 377618 , Reply# 8   8/30/2017 at 19:57 by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        

wyaple's profile picture
Airflow Box Introduction

Airflow Box Test of the Kirby Sentria II

GM8901 Anemometer ($25.21, Free Shipping)

Baird Meter

Good luck! I look forward to seeing your tests! BTW, here's what $70 USD can get you. Tough to spend $1000 on an upright or canister that scores 50-60 CFM, eh?


Post# 377640 , Reply# 9   8/31/2017 at 08:57 by Kirbysthebest (Wichita, KS)        
If you ever get the chance

Here's what I would like to see:

If you could do a test with a turbo nozzle.  It would be interesting, as we know the turbo robs the airflow.  I would like to see just how much, I'm betting it is pretty significant.


Post# 377664 , Reply# 10   8/31/2017 at 15:00 by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        

wyaple's profile picture
I've done three. Here's the video:


Post# 377665 , Reply# 11   8/31/2017 at 15:11 by Kirbysthebest (Wichita, KS)        
Thanks Bill

I will watch when I get home.  Can't access youtube at work.

Post# 377670 , Reply# 12   8/31/2017 at 19:17 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Sebo Felix

This was interesting it's essentially as powerful as my D4. When measuring the D4 i did not have a fully clean bag nor was the wand leaned back into a cleaning position. So the CFM at the nozzle is probably even closer than my results show. Out of curiosity i also took waterlift readings.

  View Full Size
Post# 377671 , Reply# 13   8/31/2017 at 19:25 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Eureka 2058

  View Full Size
Post# 377672 , Reply# 14   8/31/2017 at 19:39 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Simplicity S40p

Ah the synergy i've been saying for some time now that i believe this is the best cleaning vacuum. I was honestly expecting over 100 nozzle cfm but eh. As a bonus i included a picture of the bag i took out of the machine. I live in a 1 bedroom apt with a cat not a whole lot of space to clean and it hasn't been used too much so i was shocked to see the amount of dirt in it. there was a lot of denser dirt caught in the clumps low in the bag. I'm really beginning to wonder what's up with the nozzle testing It should not have more flow at the hose then at the base especially with the wide airpath.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 377673 , Reply# 15   8/31/2017 at 20:48 by blackheart (North Dakota)        

The synergy will be re-done i think i may have been holding the vane wrong. It significantly effects your numbers if you hold the wrong side of it to the airflow. I found some old numbers from when the dirty bag was still installed (the same one seen above) and i was getting 86.83 and 99.15 at the nozzle with 1 and 2 motors. Something really seemed off when i was getting more flow from the hose that makes no sense. Disregard the post above and we'll see what tommorow brings.

Post# 377675 , Reply# 16   8/31/2017 at 21:27 by Kirbysthebest (Wichita, KS)        

Good videos, but what I was meaning about testing airflow with turbo heads was to use your air flow box and compare the losses when a turbo is attached. Much like when you begin measuring at the machine body, then hose end, etc. Instead of power nozzle measurements, do measurements using a turbo cat or Miele turbo floor nozzle. Hopefully this would show how much power is robbed pulling these attachments.

Post# 377696 , Reply# 17   9/1/2017 at 13:15 by DrSnuggle (Sweden Stockholm)        
Thanks Bill!

drsnuggle's profile picture
Thanks Bill!
Much appreciated. I will be watching this weekend.

Blackheart (proof of me having a U1 are in the pics or in the pudding :-)):
I noticed the same for my Miele U1. It struggled to pick up some long rice left in one mess vacuuming I did (after using a vacuum starting with an O ending with a k). I thought I would bring out "The Beast" to finish what the previous vacuum did not. To my surprise it did not help. What the U1 did, however, was bringing up a lot of rice to the surface of the high pile but it could not bring it to the bag. I used my Sebo Felix in the end which did the job.

Very interesting thread this is, I have to say. I know that this is more or less a site for US people, but I cannot comment on American vacuums as there are not many in Europe (where I live).

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size

This post was last edited 09/01/2017 at 13:53
Post# 377707 , Reply# 18   9/1/2017 at 17:55 by blackheart (North Dakota)        

Harley, I can perform that test when i test the C3 cat and dog, I have access to a C2 with a turbine. I have owned a wessel werk turbing I think it was a Tk284 and wessel werk sent me a few gates "the opening into the turbine" they come in 3 different sizes Miele's turbine seems to use the largest opening so i'd except their turbine tool won't lose as much as most will. We may also have a turbocat lying around....

Jakob. I like the Miele uprights but I know there's better I'd certainly take them over the majority of other items on the market. They are a good machine. (Good machine to me means i'd be comfortable owning it as a sole vacuum or supplemented with something if it lacks tools.) But their canisters are superior to their uprights. I'm curious I see you have the electronic control does it too automatically step down when the brushroll is in use?

Post# 377739 , Reply# 19   9/2/2017 at 12:21 by tekjunkie28 (Roanoke Va)        

LFM and CFM don't correlate unless you are measuring LFM for a given size.
LFM is speed given over time while CFM in a volume over given time but I'm sure you now that :) I would like to know more about how you came up with this conversion factor. Also extremely important here is the aK number or "free space" air has to flow at the entrance of the power head.

PS I have yet to find a vacuum with as much suck power as my shop vac with a hepa and drywall dust bags.

Post# 377745 , Reply# 20   9/2/2017 at 16:10 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
In truth

The process was developed by Bill, Wyaple on here. I have no idea how he came up with the conversion. I just go with it. I wanted to see what sort of numbers my machines were pulling and the baird meter isn't exactly an effective tool for comparison since it's on a scale of 10 it leaves you thinking there's a dramatic difference between the numbers. I just learned about his process and started to do it myself with a few differences. It's been an interesting process for me some of my machines do better than i expect but most of them actually do worse than i had hoped.

and for those paying attention to the thread I'll have 4 more machines done, hopefully tonight the measurements have been taken, now it's just a matter of conversion, and photo editing.

Post# 377747 , Reply# 21   9/2/2017 at 17:04 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Simplicity S10P

Pretty impressive from a 9 lb upright. With it's nylon bristles it also has excellent agitation.

  View Full Size
Post# 377748 , Reply# 22   9/2/2017 at 17:07 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Sebo X4

As thought the Felix is indeed more powerful.

  View Full Size
Post# 377749 , Reply# 23   9/2/2017 at 17:08 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
MIele turbine

I didn't bother taking the full tests as i was more focused on the turbine aspect for Harley besides both Mieles have the 1200 watt vortex

  View Full Size
Post# 377750 , Reply# 24   9/2/2017 at 17:10 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Miele C3 cat and dog.

Despite having the same motor the hose losses and wand losses are quite different i'd assume it's due to the wiring in the hose and the electric channel which consumes wand space.

  View Full Size
Post# 377762 , Reply# 25   9/2/2017 at 22:27 by Tseg (World Traveller)        

Thanks for the Miele Turbo vs. Powered head comparisons. I have a C3 Alize suction only, for which I added a turbo head months back. On some of my medium dense pile Persian rugs the turbo is tough to push, but I guess I could open the vent to reduce suction yet keep the beater bar up to speed... but I intuit that may degrade performance further relative to deep cleaning.

With the above said, I just dropped a bit over $500 today to get a powered cord/wand/head combo (SES236) so I will now have a fairly complete powered and unpowered Miele system. Based on your comparison above and comments about the wired tubing/hose constricting air flow will I be feeling positive with the results of my pricey addition? I'm thinking your turbo head comparison testing may not be completely accurate in reality because when bristles are restricted by the carpet, flow my be further restricted as the turbine creates more resistance but should not have the same result with a powered head. Could this be a correct assumption?

Post# 377763 , Reply# 26   9/2/2017 at 22:48 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Your assumption

Should be correct. As the brush is put to carpet it will slow the turbine which should impede it's airflow further. So really the figure is more like a max flow figure, in use it'll be less. Though i cannot tell you how much. An electric tool is going to give you better agitation and despite overall losing more through the electric hose and wand you still do have more airflow at the base. Though distributed over a larger opening.

Post# 377764 , Reply# 27   9/2/2017 at 22:55 by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        
GM8901 Conversion Factor

wyaple's profile picture
This is how you convert feet per minute into CFM when using this anemometer.

Diameter of GM8901 Anemometer Detector = 2.1875 inches
Radius = 1.09375 inches = .0911458 feet
Detector Area = 3.1415926 x .0911458 x .0911458 = 0.0260990 (rounded)

Sooooo, if the vacuum generates 5000 ft./min that would be:
5000 x .026099 = 130.5 CFM

Hope this helps,


Post# 377765 , Reply# 28   9/2/2017 at 23:05 by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        
Miele C3 Cat & Dog

wyaple's profile picture

When you first gave me the measurements of the C3, you had measured 101 CFM at the end of the hose and 95 CFM at the end of the extended wand (just before going into the power nozzle). Do you have any idea as to why your newer measurements are so much lower? The end of wand readings are off by 14 CFM, which is huge. And a drop from 79" to 18" of water lift at the PN probably means there's a major leak somewhere.


Initial Measurements:
Hose: 101 CFM
Wand: 95 CFM

Second Measurements:
Hose: 95 CFM
Wand: 81 CFM

Post# 377766 , Reply# 29   9/2/2017 at 23:16 by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)        
Baird Meter Conversion Table

wyaple's profile picture
Although I've posted this many times before, here it is again. From Baird "0" to Baird "8", the spring in the meter itself is fairly linear and amazingly accurate. The last two markings, namely "9" and "10", are non-linear as the spring becomes stretched beyond its linear limits and the graph flattens out somewhat.

The spring follows Hooke's law, that is F = -kX


Post# 377768 , Reply# 30   9/3/2017 at 05:37 by blackheart (North Dakota)        

I cannot be completely sure but here's my thoughts on the difference. A new bag was put into the machine to ensure the highest possible flow.

We had used a baird meter before to measure it's flow. The meter i used was the shop's, i have no idea how old these meters are but seeing as the place has a long history with kirby i'd guess they are pretty well used which could perhaps cause the spring to stretch out a little bit and lose some of it's pull.

While this should not be a factor it's not the same wand we measured from the first time. A customer needed a wand replaced and her machine was under warranty. She uses two of them for house cleaning and needed a wand pretty quickly so we figured we'd take the wand from the higher machine which was probably not going to move anytime soon. We then just ordered a new wand and put it with it. I can't recall whether or not we fully extended the wand the last time, this time was wand was fully extended.

As for the waterlift differences when taking the wand measurement i noticed an audible leak coming from these little things. With the nozzle difference an attempt to create a seal on the box causes a lot of leakage just like with most nozzles a lot of it comes from the neck of it. I also can feel a small amount of air being drawn from where the 2 halves of the nozzle's housing join together.

when doing these tests I measured hose and wand cfms first with both canisters since i tape my baird adaptor to the vane to ensure there's less loss so i know the orientation of the meter was not an issue. Wattages were close at 1149 and 1158 so the speed setting was not a factor either.

I had actually performed the C3 nozzle test twice. After taking it's initial measurements I started to take pictures and I couldn't help but think that there's no way those numbers could be right and I must have done something wrong. SO i re-tested it and got the same numbers.

I did want higher numbers from this machine. I feel like it's a really nice vacuum and, I guess, I just had higher hopes for it.

  View Full Size
Post# 377769 , Reply# 31   9/3/2017 at 07:49 by Tseg (World Traveller)        

I suppose some other ways to slice and dice the testing is to swap turbo head with powered head on C3 and run tests... And do similar swap with complete non-powered hose setup just to ensure the power source is identical (understanding the 2 different units have the same motor). Why? To better control and measure the variables.

Post# 377820 , Reply# 32   9/4/2017 at 12:12 by DrSnuggle (Sweden Stockholm)        
Miele U1 is great!

drsnuggle's profile picture

Blackheart: I do not want to hijack this tread but I do need to respond.


Sorry if I sounded negative about the Miele U1. I am not. I completely agree with you. The quality is outstanding, the brush is powerful and it is versatile (I can fit my Miele Twister to the wand and use it as I would with a canister).

Post# 377870 , Reply# 33   9/4/2017 at 19:43 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
An annoying process

I've been trying to re-measure my Simplicity S40P and I'm still not matching my original set of numbers with the dirty bag. It seems like it's for some reason difficult to get the baseplate of the machine to create a good seal with the box.
My original numbers (prior to this thread where:
1 motor: 86.83 CFM
2 motors: 99.15 CFM
Then i put in a new bag and got the numbers above. I'm not exactly sure what i did wrong in that test but the numbers were signicantly lower, i feel i may have held the wrong side of the vane to the box.
1 motor: 67.8 CFM
2 motors: 83.23 CFM

So i finally ran another series of tests tonight.
1 motor: 84.77 CFM
2 motors: 95.55 CFM
Bag door open (direct air motor only): 98.63 CFM.

Something is still off here a machine with a dirty bag should not have more flow than a machine with a clean one. I'm much more satisfied with these numbers though. I feel the Synergy are the best cleaning uprights you can buy. So I'd love to see their maximum airflow. I know a new synergy can pull a wooden dowel away from a new Kirby avalir but there's not too huge of a difference the kirby can snatch it away if the synergy is being pulled backwards. Multiple adjustments were tried same result.

Post# 377887 , Reply# 34   9/5/2017 at 02:43 by tolivac (Greenville,NC)        

I am wondering for these airflow tests if a Wood box,or even metal one can be built for these tests-with adjustable gaskets for sealing the nozzle,tool to the box.The tests are interesting,though.Vac builders should take note!

Post# 378795 , Reply# 35   9/22/2017 at 17:41 by 882 (USA)        
blackheart C2 measurements...

Does anyone have any guess why the C2 measurements look (generally) so much better than those of the C3... I would think that the smaller bag of the C2 would potentially cause a lower CFM recording -- but it appears that something else along the line has not only compensated for that but aided the C2 performance.

Any idea what is happening there? -- Those C2 number look almost identical to the numbers that wyaple measured/posted on a C3 in April.

Post# 378796 , Reply# 36   9/22/2017 at 18:25 by Tseg (World Traveller)        

C2 v C3... just guessing C2 shorter hose and non-electric hose/wand and different nozzle could all impact the results.

Post# 378797 , Reply# 37   9/22/2017 at 18:27 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
I have some ideas.

Wyaple's cfm measurements were based off baird meter readings that I took. The baird meter used has likely been used for many Kirby demos leading me to believe that the spring in it may be stretched out a little which would lead to higher readings.

The measurements I took were measured with an anemometer I got a wind speed and thanks to Bill (wyaple) that can be converted to volume.

Now as to the Differences in flow. The motors are the same. the differences are in the hose and wand. The C3's hose has an electric cord running through it. Not only does that take up space in the hose but it could potentially create turbulence. The wand is also narrower thanks to the electric components being in the way.

Post# 378809 , Reply# 38   9/22/2017 at 21:21 by 882 (USA)        

It is still very interesting just how close the your (blackheart) C2 readings are to the ones you shared with Bill for the C3 earlier.

What is especially intriguing to me (and still feels a bit of an enigma) is not just how close the measurements are between those two data sets but the crazy drop previously noted from the end of the hose on the C3 to the end of the wand (not present on the C2 sample). IF the wiring is the airflow death source -- it seems like its effect should be felt through the hose as well as the wand. It seems like something really was going on with the wands on that C3.?. Note that the airflow differences between the C2 & C3 were not all that different at the end of the hose (Tseg's shorter hose take could account for that slight difference perhaps). Seems like there maybe more to the mystery. Love that there is a place to see this all and discuss.

It's all very fascinating.

Post# 378823 , Reply# 39   9/23/2017 at 11:39 by n0oxy (Saint Louis Missouri, United States)        
airflow of electric and nonelectric hoses

I don't have an airflow meter, but I did notice something with my Sirena water filtration machine. It includes two hoses, one is an electric hose to provide power for the power nozzle, the other is a nonelectric hose for wet pick-up, you can also use this hose for dry pick up if the power nozzle is not needed. When using the nonelectric hose, a turbine brush will spin a bit faster than when using the electric hose, and this is when using the same machine, so there must be something slightly different with electric hoses.

Post# 378834 , Reply# 40   9/23/2017 at 16:31 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Baird meters

I have access to 3 Baird meters, 1 I own, the other two belong to the shop. The measurements i gave to Bill (wyaple) used the shop (front) meter as we can see we are getting a higher reading from it vs the other two. This for me confirms my idea that it's spring is somewhat worn so there would be less resistance.

The machine used was the same Miele C3 I've been testing. It does have a little sand in it's bag but it shouldn't be enough to impact it's numbers much at all

  View Full Size
Post# 378835 , Reply# 41   9/23/2017 at 16:38 by blackheart (North Dakota)        
Hoses and wands

As we can see the hoses are similar in length. the electric has a cord running inside of it. The electric wands also have a narrower interior.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 378841 , Reply# 42   9/23/2017 at 18:40 by 882 (USA)        

Strangely, it doesn't seem like the cable running through the hose makes all that much of a difference in the measurements (hardly enough to have much notable effect -- 95 vs. 102). Any guess as to why (if it is the cause) it would make such a comparatively giant difference at the end of the wand? It actually looks like -if it (the power cable) was going to make a big difference in turbulence and flow the hose is where it would really hit hard (for a number of reasons) and be especially noticeable.

blackheart: Wonderful to see the pictures! The Baird meter picture is especially neat to see. You had to throw it in there. It makes the mystery go even deeper. The differences between the respective Baird meters definitely do not account for the scale/difference between the earlier (April - 95 CFM) wand readings vs. the newer ones (81 CFM).

I would be curious for experiment's sake (just for fun) to see what/if any difference existed with a C2 like the electro+ with the electric hose on. I wouldn't expect it to be terribly different but there do certainly appear to be fascinating things happening.

Thank you for sharing.

Post# 378843 , Reply# 43   9/23/2017 at 22:54 by Tseg (World Traveller)        

Is your electric wand the latest... SET 220? My SET 220 diameter looks the same as the non-electric, but perfectly smooth inside whereas the non-electric has all kinds of notching for the telescoping. The SET 220 has a different mechanical design to address which leaves perfectly smooth and round innards.

Post# 378844 , Reply# 44   9/23/2017 at 22:57 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

A friend of mine said that before saying something, one should think about it and ask oneself "Is it true? Is it helpful? Is it kind?" and not say anything unless one gets at least 2 "yes".

So, with that in mind, please realize that fun as it may be, a Baird meter is not a serious instrument for science. Just look at it and ask yourselves how you'd calibrate the 3 copies above to bring them to agree with each other in that measurement. Electronic instruments often have an auto-calibration routine, instruments that depend on springs often have something to help calibrate it to a known quantity, usually a knob or something.

Hard as this may be to hear, Baird meters were made to sell Kirby vacuum cleaners, and there's no reason to even believe they are not cheating in some way, the spring might be non-linear enough to make most of the cleaners of the time the meter was created to read under say, "5" and Kirby's read "10" despite the difference being small.

Has anyone among us put this meter to an apparatus that can generate known pressures and volumes at will and seen what happens?

And please, before you misunderstand me, no, I'm not saying this just to harsh y'all's vibes -- y'all tell me this is just for fun and I'll drop it, but if y'all are to take this all as serious, you need to do it in a more scientific way.

A lot of the differences we've been seeing here can be assigned to lots of small things -- aerodynamics is not as simple as it looks, like someone already said, just putting the hose in a straight line as opposed to curved makes a difference. When an airstream takes some path as opposed to another, all kinds of turbulence (or absence thereof) will give different results. You can see this in as simple situations as a box fan gives different results depending on how far they are from a wall, for example; that means that unless the adaptor boxes that Bill and Devin, among others, are using are identical, the measurements (airflow and pressure) they are reading for uprights will differ too.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 378852 , Reply# 45   9/24/2017 at 02:24 by 882 (USA)        
Tseg & earthling177

Tseg: Glad you mentioned what you did. I began to wonder the same as I have just had someone tell me the lumen of the SET220 is effectively the same diamteter as the non electric wand (right or wrong) and found a number of images that seem to support his statement. It really wouldn't make much sense with the SET220 design for it to be any narrower than the non-electric. Honestly though, I would be inclined to believe that the wand used here was an SET220.

earthling177: I have a science background and think you were very thoughtful in how you worded your statement. How rare on the internet! To me, this is largely fun and interesting. I definitely appreciate the time that these guys have put in for what I may not consider especially "academic" but definitely interesting and fun. Worth anyone arguing about? Not to me. Enticing and appreciated? Absolutely.

Post# 378862 , Reply# 46   9/24/2017 at 08:25 by n0oxy (Saint Louis Missouri, United States)        
comparing a Miele C1 and C3

It would be interesting to compare the airflow of a Miele C1 and C3, with the C3, Miele says that it's a totally sealed system, they don't make this claim for the C1, I'm not sure if this even makes a difference or if it's just marketing hype, but thought I would mention it.

Post# 378871 , Reply# 47   9/24/2017 at 13:00 by sptyks (Woburn, MA)        

sptyks's profile picture

The Baird meter was not designed or intended to make scientific measurements! This tool was designed merely to make general comparisons in airflow between different vacuum cleaners.


It is true that most bagless vacuum cleaners generate high suction but very little airflow where most bagged units generate much more airflow with less suction and Direct Air machines generate the most airflow of all types of cleaners.


The Baird meter is also a useful tool to indicate when your bagged vacuum cleaner may need to have it's bag replaced or maybe a tune up is needed.



Post# 378878 , Reply# 48   9/24/2017 at 16:44 by 882 (USA)        
Bag Influence Would be Interesting to See

I mentioned it a little in my first post above, but I also wonder if the smaller bag of the C2 creates more resistance --to the extent-- that it affects the overall CFM. Or, do the respective sizes and (Miele's bag design) not fall within a size range (condition) that actually results in much of a real difference if any? Do the smaller C2 bags and larger C3 bags influence CFM?

I've seen random evidence that suggests there is little to no difference interestingly but would love to learn more on the subject.

Post# 378965 , Reply# 49   9/27/2017 at 07:19 by Kloveland (Tulsa, OK)        

kloveland's profile picture
So the old-fashioned simple fan first designed uprights outperformed the expensive clean air uprights and canisters. Looks like they even out performed the tandem air designs. Good reason to use my Kirbys and Hoover Convertibles. I think the results speak for themselves. I don't think a person can really argue raw numbers or facts.

Post# 378982 , Reply# 50   9/27/2017 at 17:12 by Tseg (World Traveller)        

If airflow is one's only priority, there you have it. As with many premium consumer goods, an alternative consideration is overall balance of benefits. Excellent airflow for deep cleaning of rugs, excellent suction for above floor or hard floor cleaning, light weight for multi-floor transport, large and effective filter bag/compartment to limit servicing, smaller size for optimized storage, quiet motor for pleasing vacuuming experience for you and others around, variable suction for multi-surface cleaning, variety of accessories for multi-function cleaning, outstanding filtration to limit allergens, rubberized shock absorbing multi-directional wheels for quiet maneuverability, compartment to hold accessories on unit for quick accessibility, long cord and/or hose to extend reach, auto cord rewind for ease of use, awesome color and design for viewing pleasure, easy clean or stay-clean design, perceived cost/value benefit, etc...

There is a whole other category that seems to get somewhat limited play in discussion, which is critical assessment of cleaning head performance, and performance on which surface. I'd rather have strong suction and limited airflow and a suction-only parquet head on wood floors than amazing airflow and a powerful beater-bar, for instance.

Statistics are what they are, but how they are spun by the statistician can lead to false conclusions.

Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      

Comes to the Rescue!

Woops, Time to Check the Bag!!!
Either you need to change your vacuum bag or you forgot to LOG-IN?

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.


Vacuumland home
Discuss-o-Vac Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Today's Vacuum of the Day
Photos of our Collections
Vintage Vacuum Cleaner to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy