Thread Number: 25424
James Dyson: "The EU should spur invention, not mediocrity"
[Down to Last]

Vacuumland's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate vacuumland.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 285679   6/21/2014 at 14:25 (3,568 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture

An article written by Mr. D for the Financial Times:

A label is a quick informative point of navigation: the good from the bad, the old from the new, the organic from the not-quite-so-organic and the cheap from the pricey.

The EU loves labels. And I suppose, inevitably, I am about to be labelled “eurosceptic”, because I am deeply troubled by its forthcoming energy labelling for vacuum cleaners, a grading system which is unfair, unrealistic and – bluntly – unfathomable.

The eurocrats hope its label will guide people towards the most energy-efficient and best performing vacuum cleaners for sucking up dust, debris and Doritos from the floors of Parisian apartments, Ibizan villas and Bradford terraces.

The mission is laudable: 25 per cent of Europe’s energy consumption is by households. TVs, washing machines, fridges, coffee machines ... The list goes on. Vacuum cleaners too.

But an environmental label isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on unless the machine to which it sticks is efficiently engineered: better performance, fewer materials and less energy.

Otherwise, people simply carry on using energy-hungry machines and mistrust anything claiming to be energy efficient.

EU labelling systems are unscrupulously manipulated: loopholes found and regulation diluted. They become a box ticking exercise that benefits nobody.

Carmakers are known to test fuel efficiency with tape sealed door joints, disconnected batteries and disabled air conditioning – hardly representative of the proverbial journey from A to B, but all ‘fair game’ according to the EU’s rules.

The vacuum cleaner energy label is headed the same way – thanks to a cluster of traditional continental manufacturers unprepared or ill-equipped to innovate.

The EU regulators’ ‘fair game’ in this instance is a dust-free laboratory environment and a box-fresh, brand new vacuum cleaner with nothing to clean for testing against the label’s criteria.

The new label rewards manufacturers of outmoded bagged vacuums because, apparently, bags aren’t an environmental cost in the eyes of the regulators.

Maybe there are houses in Stuttgart where puffed up and puffed out dusty old vacuum bags are neatly stacked in kitchen cupboards (you know, just in case)? Or perhaps they are repurposed to level uneven Bierkeller tables in Gütersloh?

Clearly, according to the EU, any purpose other than discarding them for landfill. Why reward waste, let alone poor performance in the home?

You’d be forgiven for forgetting the performance problem with vacuum bags, because it’s been more than 20 years since the invention of bagless, cyclonic machines.

Vacuum bags are porous. As air is drawn into the machine, dust and dirt fill the bag. Yet all the air has to pass through the bag.

It’s a fundamentally flawed design because the bag’s pores quickly clog with the dust it is trying to capture, restricting the air so the machine rapidly loses suction.

As it decreases, energy usage increases. And that’s precisely what you want a vacuum for – its suction.

Vacuum bags linger in landfill or are burnt – especially the newer plastic ones. The machines in which they wheeze and gasp are prematurely consigned to the scrap heap too. Bags harm the environment and are expensive.

Instead the EU kowtows to industrial heavyweights. Industry and government should work together, but regulation is best when it allows invention to flourish.

The EU must throw down the gauntlet to engineers rather than accommodate the status quo. I’m thinking less contravention of cucumber curvature regulations or the packaging of olive oil bottles, and more the kind of legislation that rewards and inspires those who innovate.

Sometimes industry will drag its feet – in which case politicians will need to be bold and show determination. But engineers must fight their corner too.

Turning the lights out on incandescent lightbulbs has been a bumpy ride, but the EU decisively backed new technologies. It has opened up a race for engineers to develop ever more efficient Compact Fluorescent Lamps and LED lighting and has spurred a wave of R&D that might not otherwise have happened.

Badges, labels and brands: it’s all about conformity and majority rule. Conformity does not spur inventiveness.

Inventiveness – and therefore progress – is stifled when systematic.

Brussels, by all means set challenges and parameters, but please do not create sustainability legislation that rewards sustained mediocrity and waste.

-------------------------------------------

Dyson is taking the EU to judicial review at the European courts over the legislation, which becomes compulsory from September



CLICK HERE TO GO TO Turbo500's LINK

Post# 285681 , Reply# 1   6/21/2014 at 14:35 (3,568 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()        

Thanks for this. A very interesting read.

In what way do vacuum cleaner bags loose suction? I have never used a bagged cleaner that has lost suction to a noticeable level.

Sebo_fan can probably vouch for this, but vacuum bags have come a long way since being 1 layer that clog quickly. Many are now triple-layered or more, or if you have a Miele cleaner then they are of course about 6 layers. The dust bags I use for the Hoover Turbopower & Daewoo RC350BK are triple-layered & they do not loose suction.

I can't believe James Dyson is still harpering on about how bags loose suction, you only have to use a decent bagged cleaner under normal circumstances to find that it dosen't.

Bagless? No thanks. I'd rather chop down a few trees to make my life easier.


Post# 285691 , Reply# 2   6/21/2014 at 16:21 (3,568 days old) by Gr8DaneDad ()        

Mr. Dyson is quite pompous! Paper bags decompose in a matter of weeks, they don't loose suction to any level which affects performance or is even noticeable to the average person and certainly no more than his vacuums. The energy regs do encourage innovation - otherwise the companies would have nothing on offer as they cannot continue to sell 2200 watt mega-vacs. Jimmy is pissed because the legislation makes some of his, oh so carefully controlled test results (read that as only test those machines guaranteed to under perform and which cost a fraction of your product), more obviously suspect and subject to critical review.  Furthermore, it's been a lot longer than 20 years that cyclonic vacuums have been available, and Mr. Dyson did not invent them no matter what he claims. Dyson makes decent vacuums that are significantly overpriced and I'm betting that they didn't do so well in the testing environment for the new regulations... just a guess mind you.


Post# 285695 , Reply# 3   6/21/2014 at 17:15 (3,568 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        
Ty Chris, for posting this.

sebo_fan's profile picture
I already commented on this piece on FT.com under "baggedfan."






Post# 285698 , Reply# 4   6/21/2014 at 17:41 (3,568 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()        

Good on you, sebo_fan.

I think it's disgusting how he drones on about no manufacturing in the UK hardly, then there he is producing his machines in the Far East! But people will listen to him because he is the creater of the wonderous Dyson that beats every other machines behind on the market.

Also, the day Hospitals start to use Bagless Cyclonic cleaners is the day I'll loose my faith in humanity.


Post# 285701 , Reply# 5   6/21/2014 at 17:52 (3,568 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture

Reading that post has not done my blood pressure any good at all Chris, but I am glad I read it - simply because I now hate Mr. Dyson even more than before.

 

I don't say it often Nar, but I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote and am glad you took the time to reply to the ad with your (correct) views.

 

What I find ironic though, is why he is so bothered by the new EU regulations, because I always thought Dysons were within (or very close to) the new wattage limitations? 

 

It's like a car manufacturer bitching about a new minimum fuel efficiency of 50MPG, when their vehicles get 55 and upward.

 

Very strange.

 

I will feel very good about using my old 1977 Hoover Senior tomorrow, if only to imagine Mr. Dyson's face as I supposedly "lose suction after just one room".  Aye right.


Post# 285757 , Reply# 6   6/22/2014 at 02:37 (3,568 days old) by piano_god (British Columbia, Canada)        

piano_god's profile picture

With his ever increasingly bold tactics, this cry baby article doesn't really surprise me at all.  I found his shots at the Germans to be an obvious touch...

 

I believe Dyson whines because he does not want to be obstructed by any rules, no matter how insignificant or otherwise. He's used to having things this way, I'd say to the point where it's just deceitful, like his new "cleans better than any other vacuum across carpets and hard floors" claim, when it's been only tested among his selection of three (hence the word "any") cheap vacuum cleaners.

 


 

A further example of this deceit...

 

According to Toby Saville, a microbiologist at the Dyson microbiology lab says, "...research has shown us that the best way to deal with bacteria, pollen and dust mite allergens is just to remove them from your home completely. And that's why we focus our efforts on designing vacuum cleaners that pick the dust up from the floor, have cyclones that are incredibly efficient to keep it in the machine, and then filters and seals that make sure that it doesn't get emitted back out into your home."
 
Sadly, after all these years of profits from their exploitation of Malaysian labour and Asian sourced components, Dyson's research in its entirety must stop when the bin requires emptying. Moreover, as their research states to "...remove them from your home completely", the only way to do that would be to dispose of the entire bin once it is "full". 

 

The microbiologist goes on and on about dust mites being so terrible and how much effort goes into design of filters (sacrilege!) and gaskets like they've harnessed the power of a black hole. Conveniently, there's no mention of emptying that statically charged filth... 


Furthermore, Dyson apparently created their own microbiology lab because "...we wanted to really understand what was in house dust, but we couldn't find the expertise anywhere". The honest answer would have been they couldn't find a lab that could falsify the results start-to-finish when compared to a bagged machine...

 

This is the kind of blatant ignorance that deserves to be stamped out. That, together with the disposable, high-wattage vacuum cleaners. 



CLICK HERE TO GO TO piano_god's LINK



This post was last edited 06/22/2014 at 02:52
Post# 285759 , Reply# 7   6/22/2014 at 03:02 (3,568 days old) by madaboutsebo (Midlands, UK)        

madaboutsebo's profile picture
Thanks Turbo500 for posting this article. It certainly has made for some interesting comments on here! I've certainly had my eyes opened over the last 6 or 7 years with regards to bagless and bagged machines. Bag technology has moved on over the years as well as bagless technology. I'm not sure what Dyson is worried about as for this September 2014 all his machines come under the 1600 watt limit anyway until 2017! I think it's the test and labelling they are subjected too plus the fact that probably a lower watt motor doesn't create enough airflow for the cyclones to work efficiently enough in the bigger machines of his! Plus the fact he seems to be pushing his cordless machines more and more so he'll probably discontinue his corded machines anyway. Or is he concerned as the lower wattage ruling will make other manufacturers sit up and think and have to design better machines invest in R&D which will challenge Dyson machines more! I think the new EU ruling is a good idea in a lot of respects! Might be the thought Dyson thinks bagged machines will make a bigger come back under the new EU ruling!?

Post# 285760 , Reply# 8   6/22/2014 at 03:11 (3,568 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()        

I HOPE that bagged machines make a comeback, bagless has ruled the market for way too long now, & it's disgusting how Dyson has a go at Bagged Vacuum Companies, saying that their ruining the world because of the fact that bags don't disintegrate! Of course they do!

This is why I don't let anyone I know buy a Dyson, because they think he's God practically, but really he's just selling Vacuums of no better quality than Vax at twice to even three times the price, & even with the so-called 'trade-in' their still expensive.


Post# 285761 , Reply# 9   6/22/2014 at 03:44 (3,568 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Gosh, thanks guys.



Post# 285765 , Reply# 10   6/22/2014 at 06:06 (3,568 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
My comment:



It would have been quite nice to hear what Mr. Dyson genuinely thinks of the EU legislation coming in - the pro's, con's and how this will affect the market and any impact on his business model. But instead, Jimmy D has opted for shameless self-promotion of his mediocre product, a blatant attack on the EU and on his competition. This really does demonstrate how much James Dyson doesn't have the faintest idea about vacuuming, vacuum cleaners or the market around him. Both bagged and bagless vacuums have pro's and con's and there is a strong market for both. The EU legislation is an entirely welcome change on a market that has been primarily Dyson-focused for 20 years. This whole article reeks of fear or change. In actual fact, the inevitable legislation introduction will force lazy, money-focused manufactures like TTI and Candy-Hoover to really put some research and development into their products for the first time in over 20 years to find new ways of design high performing machines with low wattages. This is a welcome change for the consumer as it will eventually result in slightly more expensive machines but that are far higher performing and more reliable. On the subject of reliability, it is a well known fact amongst those in the know that bagged vacuums are considerably more reliable than bagless models. Take a look in the skips at your local household waste site - they're full of Dysons and other bagless vacuums, whereas Numatic (Henry et al), Panasonic, Sebo, Miele and old Hoover and Electrolux uprights lasted for decades and, in many cases, are still in daily use. Dyson took the market by storm when they hit the shops in 1993 and this very welcome change is the first shake up that the vacuum market has faced since. It is more than welcome in my view. Vacuum cleaners will be more efficient, more reliable and you won't have to pay through the nose for a Dyson just to get a decent bagless cleaner - THAT is why Mr. D is panicking.

On the subject of bagged vs. bagless, who wants to pay £400 for a cheap heap of Malaysian made plastic that requires it's filters cleaning to keep up performance and will inevitably burn out and end up in a landfill itself? Dyson's "no loss of suction" claim is conditional on constant maintenance of the filter. I'd much rather throw a bag in a bin that have to get covered in dust and dirty by emptying bagless bins and washing out clogged filters.


Post# 285779 , Reply# 11   6/22/2014 at 09:01 (3,567 days old) by rutger (England)        

Mr Dyson's rant is quite amusing but total drivel.

I love it when the environment is mentioned by someone who switched his manufacturing to Malaysia. I wonder how many Dyson's he sells there & I wonder how strictly controlled pollution from that Dyson plant is compared to one that would be in the UK?

The fact that the plastics used in a lot of the Dyson's I've seen seem to degrade rather quickly & the general build quality is a bit ropey (the one I was looking at in Sainsbury's earlier today looked like it would be broken by the time it got home !) Can't do much for the environment either, as when things break these days people tend to throw them away & judging by what one reads Dyson's seem to break quite often.

I was never particularly keen on Mr Dyson & his comments just reinforce my opinion.

Dave



Post# 285783 , Reply# 12   6/22/2014 at 09:47 (3,567 days old) by matt8808 (Teesside - North East - UK)        

I'd pay good money to see you lot locked inside a small room with Mr Dyson for a few hours lmfao


You've all made some VERY good points here guys :)


Post# 285787 , Reply# 13   6/22/2014 at 10:45 (3,567 days old) by turbomaster1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        
First of all

turbomaster1984's profile picture
Let me wave to Jimmy D' Heeeeya! Im pretty sure you'll be reading this given your tactics played so far.

Well course he's wetting himself.

When consumers actually realise (which WILL happen due to the legislation) they dont need high wattage cleaners to do the job and they are actually paying over the odds in electricity bills for a clean carpet they will want LOWER AND LOWER wattages.

Course we know wattages to clean a carpet can go as low as 250W and this combined in a Tandem air maachine could lead to someting else.

The legislation could take into account a percentage for splitting down tandem air macine use for average times taken using each side to acieve a more apporpriate figure over a constant 800w cleaner when just floor cleaning is concerned.

Of course we dont use the hose for a good 80% of daily average vacuuming (based on timed use of my own) so a 250w motor to drive carpet and hard floor cleaning Hoover Junior style with better suited brushrolls and maybe even a way of getting twin fan could really drive the energy label A grade and beyond while the brushrolls Achieve the same.

The hose suction motor of course could be a slightly higher wattage to aid dirt removal but again with twin or triple fans could be easily kept at an A grade while achieving A grade cleaning.

Naturally this kind of cleaner would need to be bagged wouldnt it James :D and bags can and do mean little to no loss of suction, HEPA filtration, easy dust disposal. Bags can be made cheap or even part of the cleaners costs.

We all know how some folk dont mind spending £400 on a cleaner, so say Hoover could produce this cleaner to sell for £200 including £100 worth of bags for the lifetime of it and retailing it for £300 and still be banging them out.

His views on ECO policies seem to be so short sighted given that his cleaners cyclones, and all the hundreds of patented parts he claims he has or had mean that his ECO credentials dont exist.

Lets strip everything down - hours and hours of wasted materials, energy for lighting and heating while his engineers concoct their stuff.

Production, shipping, assembling of hundreds of bits of plastic when Hoover had it down to a motor, fill tube and brushroll and bag.
I bet the weight of a turbopowers plastic comes nothing to what gets used on a Dyson.


His day has come and all power to the EU rulings which are the best thing to happen since IBAISAIC.



Post# 285792 , Reply# 14   6/22/2014 at 11:36 (3,567 days old) by blakaeg (NW London, UK)        

I agree with the comments here. As a Dyson uses. Many parts have broken on all the different models. DC04, 05, 16 and 24 machines. I would have thrown out so many hoses, handles, 2 x cleaners heads and 2 batteries. I took the parts to a recycling facility. But the average consumer would have just disposed of them in the bin.

Post# 285838 , Reply# 15   6/22/2014 at 20:34 (3,567 days old) by super-sweeper (KSSRC Refurbishment Center)        
A load of tripe,

super-sweeper's profile picture

Is absolutely correct. 'Bags are bad for the environment and are expensive', Dyson loves to promote bagless everywhere he can! 

The next thing you know he'll be going on about inventing bagless trash bins and convincing people that vacuum cords are a safety hazard! Since when is PAPER not biodegradable? Or even better, think about those few belts or bulbs a Nice, older Kirby uses in the time a modern consumer burns through 4 Dysons.....


Post# 285853 , Reply# 16   6/22/2014 at 23:14 (3,567 days old) by ralph123 (Little Rock, AR)        
Dyson is partially right

Aside from the pompous comments about the supposed superiority of bagless, he is right on. the European rules are stupid and arbitrary.

Post# 285866 , Reply# 17   6/23/2014 at 05:06 (3,567 days old) by turbomaster1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        
Ralph

turbomaster1984's profile picture
the rules are a good thing and what we have needed for a while.

Its only going to see that we get great performing machines with lower wattages.


Post# 285867 , Reply# 18   6/23/2014 at 05:21 (3,567 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
the rules are a good thing

turbo500's profile picture
Absolutely agree, Rob.

The US have had regulations on vacuum motor power for a long time. Certainly the UK have been brainwashed into this belief that high-wattage = better suction, which is not the case. Hence my mother's 1300w Sebo Felix has more suction power than the 1900w Elecrolux that it replaced. I've seen cleaners go as high as 3000w here. It's causing vacuum motors to run at too high speed and overheat.

The new legislation will force vacuum manufacturers to pay more attention to R&D and find new ways of creating high suction, low power machines. Lower wattage motors will also reduce the risk of vacuums running too hot and overheating, thus making them more reliable.

This is a very very welcome change to the market, which has been dominated by Dyson and cheap, high power, low reliability cleaners for 20 years now.

Whilst Mr. Dyson may have a point that the ratings given with regard to carpet pick up may not reflect use in the home, the basis of the legislation to reduce the amount of energy used by vacuums whilst continuing to perform well is absolutely 100% a good thing.


Post# 285873 , Reply# 19   6/23/2014 at 07:49 (3,567 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        
Fantasy meets reality

sebo_fan's profile picture
Whilst I agree that the laws are good and i.e will make brands do a little more work rather than re-tarting up existing models with new hoods, colours etc, I think there's a danger here of not knowing the actual saving of money where lower powered vacuums in a UK domestic home are concerned.

There has been no actual "real time" data published in the UK as yet that shows that there can be a saving. Equivalent reports available in the U.S state that as little as $8 every 3 to 5 years, which is something like £4-70 to £5 every 3 to 5 years. Provided that your model is going to last that long, it's still very much up in the air what kind of saving a domestic vac owner is going to make compared to the norm.



Post# 285875 , Reply# 20   6/23/2014 at 08:00 (3,567 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
It's not just the energy saving, Nar, it's the amount of cheapo-crap vacuums that end up down the tip, clogging up landfills. Mr. Dyson raised the point in his article, albeit rather hypocritically. If you pay a visit to your local household waste site, the pens are FULL of cheap, bagless vacuums. We had a big clear out ready to move just a few months ago and I went for a nosey in the electricals. There was a heap of vacuums piled up, all of them bagless. From memory, a few Vax uprights, a Hoover Dustmanager, about 4 cheap store brand vacs and then a whole pen FULL of Dyson's, from DC01's right up to DC24's.

It's not just the wasteful energy that these 2200w vacuums are using, but the damaged caused when they break within a few years and get sent to the tip. Nobody gets anything repaired anymore as it's so cheap to buy new. If vacuums are more reliable, the less will end up at the tip - another point that Mr. Dyson is
sh!tting himself over. LESS SALES.


Post# 285877 , Reply# 21   6/23/2014 at 08:19 (3,567 days old) by turbomaster1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        

turbomaster1984's profile picture
Given I use our cleaner for approx 1 hour a week in total @ 14p a kw/h using a 2000w Miele costs me 28p.

That adds up to £14.56 a year.

Given I could use a cleaner averaging 500w for my weekly cleam brings it down to £3.64 SAVING ME £10.92.

I know Id rather that 11 quid personally saved even if it was just the cost a o bottle or 3 of plonk than go to some fat cat at npower.



Post# 285883 , Reply# 22   6/23/2014 at 09:03 (3,566 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Well it might even be cheaper for you if you don't use your vacuum per hour in your weekly cleaning session.

That's the problem though, Rob. There are so many variables in how many times an average Joe uses a vacuum, and how is that saving calculated? Not all people who own a vacuum cleaner in a home will necessarily require to use it to clean up 2.4 children, 2 pets, etc.

I think the infinite possibilities from usage are just that - infinite possibilities - and where it would be impossible to calculate what saving you will find unless it is based on averages.

Claiming that vacuum cleaners will save on energy has to be proved right down to the last unit of power used. Otherwise, we may as well just use cordless vacuums and robotics for the rest.

Or perhaps that is what the industry wants us to do?


Post# 285887 , Reply# 23   6/23/2014 at 09:39 (3,566 days old) by turbomaster1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        

turbomaster1984's profile picture
Nar at the end of the day a saving is a saving. and if its cost no initial outlay then all the more to gain.

A million customers getting a pound each knocked off their leccy bill because their cleaner uses less electricty soon mounts up to energy companies getting less each year.

Given they dont think twice about adding a % to everyones bill yearly knowing we cant do anything about it I welcome consumers getting lower energy using gadgets in the fight back!


Post# 285888 , Reply# 24   6/23/2014 at 09:51 (3,566 days old) by ralph123 (Little Rock, AR)        

will it save any money if consumers end up having to vacuum longer, or possibly link up several vacuums in "monster vac" fashion to get enough power to clean? Or if cyclonic vacuums clog their filters since they are underpowered and cannot spin the dirt out of the airstream?

Maybe next they can require washing machines to clean a load of laundry with 1 cup of water. Wouldn't that be efficient?


Post# 285889 , Reply# 25   6/23/2014 at 09:55 (3,566 days old) by ralph123 (Little Rock, AR)        

If you're worried about vacuums in landfills, then rewarding Dyson for having a recycling program is the way to go. There will always be cheap vacuums because consumers demand them.

Perhaps to save energy vacuums should have meters such that they can only be used 10 minutes per week. That would certainly save energy.


Post# 285890 , Reply# 26   6/23/2014 at 10:01 (3,566 days old) by turbomaster1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        

turbomaster1984's profile picture
Ralph your trolling the wrong people here.

Our washers use 1/3 to 1/4 of the water american machines use and we get better wash results.

Low wattage cleaners clean better than high wattage cleaners just because they are designed better. What would you pick? A Hoover Convertible using 400watts or a 1200w miele straight suction cylinder.

Seems like you know very little.


Post# 285891 , Reply# 27   6/23/2014 at 10:08 (3,566 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
The early 90's seems to be the high point of low energy-high suction power. Electrolux Contour, Hoover Turbopower 2, Panasonic 40 & 50 series - all clean air uprights with excellent suction, certainly enough to rival a model cleaner, and none of them are over 900w.

The key is design. If a cleaner is well designed and thought out, it's entirely possible that cleaners can still have a strong suck without the need for excessive motor wattage. The Dyson Ball cylinders with the digital motor are only 1050w and they really pack a punch suction wise. Numatic have just proved high suction is possible with their new machines, rated at 580w.

Not to mention, motor wattage in the US has been limited for a long time. I believe the max is 1400w? And yet, none of our friends in the US are complaining that there chosen vacuums aren't cleaning properly.


Post# 285892 , Reply# 28   6/23/2014 at 10:11 (3,566 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
rewarding Dyson for having a recycling program

turbo500's profile picture
Just what do you think Dyson do with all those trade in's? The company can't reuse them, because the parts are not compatible with Dyson cleaners. He won't sell them on, because that would give a competitor more attention and GOD FORBID that happens, eh James?

They get stuffed in a landfill just like all those other vacuums at the tip.



Post# 285896 , Reply# 29   6/23/2014 at 10:29 (3,566 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        
FYI - American vacuum wattage...

sptyks's profile picture

is restricted to 1440 watts so as to not overload our household circuits which are designed to carry a maximum of 1800 watts at 120 volts. Now except for electric stoves and clothes dryers which run on 240 volts with a circuit capacity of 7200 watts.

 

This law was passed over 20 years ago, not for environmental purposes but for safety reasons.

 

Now most of our modern american cleaners, bagged and bagless, are rated at 1320 to 1440 watts and they clean very well. (1320 watts = 11 amps. 1440 watts = 12 amps)


Post# 285899 , Reply# 30   6/23/2014 at 10:38 (3,566 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
not for environmental purposes but for safety reasons

turbo500's profile picture
Thank you for confirming, Sptyks.

However, the point still stands. With vacuums being capped at 1440w, many manufacturers have proven that one can still clean a carpet and generate high suction power with much less than that.

I've yet to see any of our us members complaining about the performance of a Rainbow, Riccar, Filter Queen or Kirby, for example. The UK FQ's are rated 800w, I imagine the US ones are similar, and yet they clean to a very high standard.


Post# 285907 , Reply# 31   6/23/2014 at 10:58 (3,566 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        
Turbo 500,

sptyks's profile picture

You are correct, there are very few complaints here regarding vacuum performance. The Riccar Tandem Air is probably one of the best performing household upright vacuums in the world. This is at a power rating of 11 amps or 1320 watts. (That's with 2 motors).

 

The biggest problem we face is with cheap plastic vacs that clean very well at first but either break down or the filters get clogged very soon and are therefore thrown away because the owner neglects to clean the filters. Our landfills are becoming full of these.




This post was last edited 06/23/2014 at 11:15
Post# 285909 , Reply# 32   6/23/2014 at 11:19 (3,566 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

dys0nb0y's profile picture
I actually do know what they do with the vacuum they Get in Traded in. If the machine is in good condition and Can save They will Do it up And then Give it to families that can't afford vacuum cleaner And if it's too broken they will Take the metal out of it and it will melt down the plastic and Reuse it or sell it I know this Because I used to know someone that work for Dyson



This post was last edited 06/23/2014 at 13:17
Post# 285911 , Reply# 33   6/23/2014 at 11:25 (3,566 days old) by ralph123 (Little Rock, AR)        


turbomaster1984 said: "Ralph your trolling the wrong people here. Our washers use 1/3 to 1/4 of the water american machines use and we get better wash results.
Low wattage cleaners clean better than high wattage cleaners just because they are designed better. What would you pick? A Hoover Convertible using 400watts or a 1200w miele straight suction cylinder. Seems like you know very little."

turbomaster1984 - I have had a front load washing machine since 1999. My USA washing machine uses 10-14 gallons per load. So please let me know which brand washing machine you have that uses 2.5 to 3.5 gallons of water.

So are you suggesting that 400 watts should be the limit for all vacuum cleaners in the EU?



Post# 285915 , Reply# 34   6/23/2014 at 11:50 (3,566 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
400 watts should be the limit

turbo500's profile picture
Not at all. But if strong suction can be generated using lower wattages, thus resulting in more reliable vacuums and a saving on energy, then surely that can only be a good thing.

FYI, Dysonboy, I'm not Sebo_Fan and I think what you're saying is poop, quite frankly. Why would a vacuum cleaner company give away vacuums? Especially competitors vacuums. It's a ridiculous idea and I think it's quite obvious that certain vacuum manufactures won't do anything unless there's a profit in it. I think the same could be said for most, if not all, vacuum companies.


Post# 285916 , Reply# 35   6/23/2014 at 11:58 (3,566 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Also, notice how Mr. Dyson is the only person moaning about it. We've not heard a peep out of TTI, Candy, Electrolux or Miele. Numatic seem to have embraced the legislation with open arms. Quite telling really.

Post# 285917 , Reply# 36   6/23/2014 at 12:12 (3,566 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

California started imposing energy efficiency standards on home appliances a couple of decades ago, not so much for environmental reasons but to reduce the growth in the demand on the electric grid. The modern US household puts about four times the demand on the grid that the 1960's household did. Big screen TVs and your cable or satellite dish box are two of the highest wattage devices in your home. Some cable boxes are rated to 800 watts, and that box is on day and night spinning the meter. The standards have been so successful that the standards have been applied across the US. They have saved California from having to site and build a lot of powerplants it otherwise would have had to build, at a savings to the rate payers, and it has somewhat reduced the costs to upgrade residential grids to handle the increasing loads put on them by computers, TVs and cable boxes in every room. I think those of us who understand the problem think it is more economical to restrict the growth in electrical demand by such regulstion rather than simply try to build more power plants.

Just my two cents. I won't always run European regs down, they have a much internet service than the US, and I will take a German autobahn over one of our dilapidated freeways any day of the week.


Post# 285918 , Reply# 37   6/23/2014 at 12:15 (3,566 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        
I'm sorry,

sptyks's profile picture

but I think that if a vacuum cleaner needs to clean exceptionally well and consume less than 800 watts, then it will need to be of a "Direct Air" design like the Hoover Convertable or the Kirby.


Post# 285919 , Reply# 38   6/23/2014 at 12:19 (3,566 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Well I'm sorry, sptyks, but you thought wrong. I own cleaners that prove you wrong.

Post# 285920 , Reply# 39   6/23/2014 at 12:29 (3,566 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

I am having my first experience with a bagless machine. A departed room mate of my fiancee left a Eureka Maxima thing that didn't suck (the only thing about that woman that didn't suck but I digress). For giggles this weekend I removed the filters and cleaned it out. Both filters were clogged solid and as I removed parts I shooke the machine and it's hose out on the garage floor. It looked like she had been vacuuming a vacant lot all the rocks that came out. In fact the entire machine was covered with a tan film, looking like a car that had been driven on a desert road after a thunderstorm washed mud onto the pavement.

There are too many U shaped low spots in those vacuums to trap dirt. I had to turn it upside down with all the covers removed, stretch the hose out and shake the thing vigorously to get all the dirt out of it. Junk! I still want to pull the bottom plate and clean out the brush area thoroughly. The brush itself looks ok, still some bristle sticking out past the bottom plate and nothing wrapped around the brush roll.

I'll buy new filters and see what that does. It's a free vacuum so it's kind of a science project but it does point out that people are clueless how to take care of their vacuums and let what I am betting will be a halfway decent working machine get tossed in the trash out of ignorance about how to maintain it.

Btw, emptying the container and removing the filter are not very clean. You really hae to wash the container out or wipe it with a damp rag to get it clean. I can't see any advantage to bagless compared to a good bagged vacuum. They strike me as dirtier than a good bagged machine.


Post# 285923 , Reply# 40   6/23/2014 at 12:48 (3,566 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

Turbo500, it is quite normal in the US for manufacturers of household durable goods to either recycle trade ins that are not economical to repair or to donate to charity items that can be repaired cheaply and put back into use. Most states have laws that encourage, even require, this to happen to alleviate the demand for scarce landfill space. I don't know about your state but California has required 50% of all municipal solid waste to be diverted from landfills since 1990. The bigger cities exceed this. By 2020 75% of all municipal solid waste is required to be diverted from landfills. What is driving this is the cost and difficulty of siting new landfills. Btw, this applies to pretty much all consumer durable goods, not just vacuums. TV, refrigerators, washers and dryers, etc. all have similar recycling/charity donation programs associated with them.

Here are some examples on different company websites of what you say doesn't happen:

thinkoutsidethebin.com/2011/10/25...

www.att.com/gen/generalQUESTIONMA...

Read down to the very bottom of this link:

www.vacauthority.com/why-vacuum-a...

There are countless examples I could spend all day linking. I think you get the idea however.


Post# 285924 , Reply# 41   6/23/2014 at 13:01 (3,566 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
dYson boy - I have no idea what you are on about, either sorry.

As collectors we know we can be gentle with a fragile vacuum AND a heavy duty one - Average Joe doesn't know the difference and these days, due to the threat of cheaply priced plastic vacs, ignorance becomes the next level playing card whereby if it is broke, replace it, since it is cheap to buy instead of maintain and repair.

Then there are the owners who baulk this trend, who don't treat a plastic vac with disdain, who maintain it regularly and may well find that the plastic-vac actually lasts longer than they thought it would.

But, above all of that, only a FEW brands in the UK offer spares availability, and I'm going further here than the common filter, dust bag or drive belt.

To return to the original posting of this topic, and further info I also added elsewhere, the average customer in the face of our British recession has had to either make do and mend or just not have whatever gadget or machine they have been so used to in replacing due to cheap cost prices. As a nation we've not been able to do that for some time and as a result, brands such as Numatic, SEBO and to a latter extent Miele have made spares more readily available in light of the "make do and mend" approach.

Though I welcome the new EU law with open arms, I won't be throwing out my 2000 watt Miele S6 just because it happens to have far too much rated power. It may well be harder to sell on in the future if I keep in good condition.






Post# 285925 , Reply# 42   6/23/2014 at 13:09 (3,566 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

Why sell it Sebo_fan? If it does what you need a vacuum to do and you can repair it, why not just keep using it? My "daily drivers" are a pair of 30 something year old Kenmore canisters. I have a modern upright but it won't even begin to replace those canisters. Not even close. Modern canisters are so flimsy they feel like I am going to break them even when I handle them gently. Do you think a new Kenmore Intuition canister will survive three decades of normal use like my old Kenmores have? I don't.

Post# 285928 , Reply# 43   6/23/2014 at 13:28 (3,566 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        

sptyks's profile picture

Turbo500,

 

I would put my 50 year old 600 watt Kirby Dual Sanitronic 50 up against any bypass air vacuum under 800 watts that you may have and we'll see which machine can pull the most dirt out of a carpet.


Post# 285929 , Reply# 44   6/23/2014 at 13:31 (3,566 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

Whew, if this and a couple of other threads get any nastier the board may have to start a new subject area called "Contemptorary". Easy everyone, it's just a hobby!

Post# 285930 , Reply# 45   6/23/2014 at 13:33 (3,566 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture

My point was not that a clean air vs. dirty fan debate. The point is that a clean air machine under 800w can, did and no doubt will perform to a high standard and clean carpets to the same acceptable level as a higher wattage clean air machine.

 

I have a 700w Panasonic upright with excellent suction and an 800w Hoover Turbopower 2, again with excellent suction. A lower wattage motor, with the right design, can generate strong suction power. Dirty fan doesn't even come into it.


Post# 285932 , Reply# 46   6/23/2014 at 14:09 (3,566 days old) by Gr8DaneDad ()        

I have many Electrolux vacuums from the 40's to the 70's with motors ranging from 475-525 watts that will out clean most other vacuums regardless of date of manufacture and will out clean their newer Aerus siblings with 11 amp motors (1320 watts, more than twice the wattage). Furthermore, all of them are quiet and none run very warm at all... they all depend on superior design of the motor with 2 fans, and all will continue to clean well with minimal maintenance indefinitely. I too have a D50 with a 500 watt motor that I'll gladly put up against any vacuum, no matter the wattage, because even if it's not better, it will only be marginally worse and it will still be working in 50 more years of use.

 


Post# 285935 , Reply# 47   6/23/2014 at 14:29 (3,566 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

I dunno Turbo500? That "dirty fan" Ametek Lamb 115923 motor used in some Kenmore, Panasonic and even some early Meile canister vacums tests at 100.5 inches of sealed water lift and 122 cfm airflow. How many bypass, or dirty fan motors for that matter, in modern production vacuums can beat those numbers? Darn few if any that I'm aware of. For a 5.7 inch motor, that is very high performance.

There is a claim out there that brushless AC motors provide four or five times the durability of carbon brush motors, all else being equal. But I have decades old Kenmore carbon brush motor vacuums that have been used weekly and the carbon brushes show less than half wear. The brushes in the early 1990's vintage 4.1 are as long as new brushes. It's a thing of beauty to unbutton this old Kenmore and see that. Sure the claim might be true but will I live long enough to realize the difference? Like much in engineering, the compromises you make to implement a technology in a given application as much determine the ultimate performance of that application as the particular type of technology chosen. Dirty fan vs clean fan? It depends on the materials, design and how they are applied.


Post# 285940 , Reply# 48   6/23/2014 at 14:59 (3,566 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        
Until...

...some clever person conducts real-life tests to show the harm and side-effects (if indeed any -to play devils advocate, if I may) of debris on a carpeted surface, the whole debate as to which vacuum cleaner removes more dirt from it is completely redundant anyway.

There are already suggestions out there that carpets are in some ways healthier in living areas than hard floors, as the latter allow dust and debris to become airborne very easily, whereas a carpet does at least hold onto it. As long as one does not spend much time on the floor (and given my age it is likely I will, should I have another fall), then a carpet which looks clean is probably clean enough. You walk on floors, you don't eat off them.

Which brings me to the next point; hard surfaces need very little suction power to clean them anyway. It is only carpets which seem to require a good suction power.

Turbomaster1984 got it right when he/she said that the money saved from using less electricity is better off in our pockets than that of the energy company, no matter what the saving. Also, I agree that there are too many variables to make sound assessments as to how much electricity might be consumed and / or saved by the new EU regulations overall, but one fact stands out head and shoulders above the rest, and that is if a new vacuum cleaner rated at 900w replaces one that was 1800w, for every second that new cleaner is in use, it is literally using half the amount of electricity. When you think that an appliance still has to perform well in order for someone to buy it (thus the manufacturers are now working hard to achieve such status with lower wattage motors), this cannot be bad for any consumer.


Post# 285942 , Reply# 49   6/23/2014 at 15:12 (3,566 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

In theory my Windsor upright should be a better vacuum and clean better than my ancient Kenmore with their old Panasonic Powermates. But in real life the belt sensor on the Windsor has a little Teutonic hissy fit on deep pile carpet and misinterprets the drag on the brush as a jam, flashing it's little red light at me a New York nanosecond before the vacuum stops. The old Kenmore doesn't have a belt sensor. If you misuse it you can break the belt. Guess which vacuum is better on carpet? Not the one most would predict. Again, it is as much about how a technology is implemented as the level of technology chosen.

Post# 285948 , Reply# 50   6/23/2014 at 17:28 (3,566 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()        

To carry on from what vintagerepairer mentioned about hard floors needing very little suction power, doesn't beko1987 use the lowest setting on his Miele for hard floors?


Post# 285955 , Reply# 51   6/23/2014 at 18:59 (3,566 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        
Planned Ownership vs Planned Obsolescence

sebo_fan's profile picture
Well, Gr8DaneDad, the problem with owning a modern vac these days is getting parts for it later on and very much falls down to what the brand at the time keeps in stock where spares are concerned. Planned ownership in the eyes of the brand easily gets lost with planned obsolescence.

Some of our collectors, have realised that finding parts for Hoover's Turbopower 2/3 difficult to find. One might argue and say that Hoover never claimed those were lifetime models, but to cut the model's life expectancy short with a lack of brand new replacement brush rolls means for the most part, owners either have to decide whether they are going to throw the vacuum away or depend on 2nd hand parts until that stock part may return - or never return.

Same with the outer soft bags on Hoover uprights - one of my pet hates was having to use a generic soft bag when the original one on any one of my Hoover classic vintage uprights might tear or break. As collectors will tell you, finding an outer soft bag for the model you own is as rare as hen's teeth.

Another thought - cleaning hard floors. They are usually non-porous, like wooden shelves - you can use whatever power setting you like when it comes to cleaning hard floors in general - I use high power - I can't abide low power on hard floors - takes far too long dependent on how dirty the hard floor is.

Carpet is different - it often requires EITHER a deep brush roll or high enough suction with gentle brush roll so that it doesn't destroy the carpet. Something I wish my early Dyson uprights didn't have such a knack of doing.

DesertTortoise - you have already mentioned about your Windsor Sensor and how the electronics prevent it from going deeper into the pile. But both Windsor and SEBO don't advertise the X as a deep cleaning vacuum cleaner. It has always claimed to clean gently as well as offer far better value for money and easily replaceable AND repairable by the owner. Also, I don't know what the parts are like for your Kenmore but SEBO are like Kirby, Numatic - parts for most models are always available.





Post# 285985 , Reply# 52   6/24/2014 at 04:06 (3,566 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
My other fear is that even with an EU law coming in, brands won't do much in terms of a redesign, other than rely on Wessel Werk floor heads and a little fettling here and there to a basic design.

Post# 286005 , Reply# 53   6/24/2014 at 09:10 (3,565 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        
Vintagetrepairer,

sptyks's profile picture

You said: " the whole debate as to which vacuum cleaner removes more dirt from it is completely redundant anyway... You walk on floors, you don't eat off them. "

 

Well I beg to differ. We all need a vacuum cleaner, weather it be Direct air or Bypass air, that will remove as much dirt as possible from our carpets. The reason is that fine dirt and sand which is not visible to the naked eye is what causes carpets to wear out prematurely. That fine dirt and sand that is left behind by an inefficient or inadequately powered vacuum cleaner, when walked on, acts like sandpaper wearing away the fibers in your carpet. You must ask yourself - Is it better to save a few quid on electricity in a year, or save hundreds by extending the life of your carpet by several years?


Post# 286006 , Reply# 54   6/24/2014 at 09:19 (3,565 days old) by turbomaster1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        

turbomaster1984's profile picture
but didnt we already establish that 250w is enough to clean a carpet perfectly on a bagged machine?

So why the extra power need?

Fine tuning this design on a TANDEM air machine like I mentioned means LOWER wattages on average and far lower than any cyclone machine could even scores out with.

Low cleaning performance wont be an issue with grading the cleaning performance. Washing machines were scored very successfully this way until manufacturers got their acts toghether in the design department instead of lowering water levels on the same machine design they now maximise water thru cascading paddles and jets in the drums designed for the job.




Post# 286007 , Reply# 55   6/24/2014 at 09:21 (3,565 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
As has been said before, it's been proven many times before (certainly on the UK market at least) that a vacuum can generate a lot of suction power with a low wattage motor. I have clean air machines of various wattage's from a 500w Electrolux 502 to a 1000w Panasonic and all clean the carpet very well.

See video below. This is a clean air upright from 1989 with a 560w twin-fan motor. Good carpet agitation and strong suction. What more do you want from an upright?





Numatic have just proven that with a 580w cleaner that generates 10% more airflow than their previous 1200w cleaner.

Dirty fan uprights have been a thing of the past for years. There hasn't been a widely available dirty fan upright since 2001 when the Hoover Turbopower was phased out. Apart from Kirby, there isn't a dirty fan upright on sale in the UK and due to the poor hose suction of cheaper dirty fan uprights and the inconvenience of having to take half the cleaner apart to use the hose, they're not really that likely to make a comeback.


Post# 286008 , Reply# 56   6/24/2014 at 09:22 (3,565 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        
Not that old chestnut again...

sebo_fan's profile picture
We all need a vacuum cleaner, yes.

We don't need a machine that will destroy our carpets with overuse. That's the marketing truth behind the nonsense that Hoover used to advertise with the "dirt you can't see that is grinding away your fibres.."

In reality, excess brush rolls tears carpet pile apart, not to mention over-vacuuming.

A vacuum cleaner should just be able to keep things looking cleaning. After all, we can't be sure whether a carpet is really clean unless you microscopically analyse your carpet.

On the basis that I have wool carpets I have to be careful with my dirty fan upright. I can't use it for everything because it deep cleans and removes the wool. Softer bristles lessen the wear on the carpets and in this day and age I'd like to have BOTH - a good choice of brush roll or vacuum cleaner that I know is not going to be aggressive but ALSO cleans and is ALSO economical to run.

That's why I adore SEBO's X1 Auto and Felix uprights.


Post# 286022 , Reply# 57   6/24/2014 at 10:42 (3,565 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
or, there's this. 550w clean air motor. Still manages to cling to the carpet with ease.






Post# 286024 , Reply# 58   6/24/2014 at 11:07 (3,565 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        

sptyks's profile picture

I wasn't trying to push one type of vacuum over another. It doesn't matter if it's Clean air or Dirty fan and wattage doesn't matter as long as it has sufficient power to thoroughly clean a carpet.

 

I would much rather KNOW that my carpet is as CLEAN as it can be and not just LOOK clean. I think there are many folks here on vacuumland that share this opinion.


Post# 286025 , Reply# 59   6/24/2014 at 11:16 (3,565 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Quote:

"but I think that if a vacuum cleaner needs to clean exceptionally well and consume less than 800 watts, then it will need to be of a "Direct Air" design like the Hoover Convertable or the Kirby."

"I wasn't trying to push one type of vacuum over another. It doesn't matter if it's Clean air or Dirty fan and wattage doesn't matter as long as it has sufficient power to thoroughly clean a carpet."

Ok...bit of a contradiction.

As proved by the 2 video's above showing 2 clean air machines rated at 560w and 550w respectively, a clean air machine under 800w can produce enough suction power to effectively clean a carpet, which is the whole point of the new legislation as too much power is being wasted.


Post# 286032 , Reply# 60   6/24/2014 at 11:47 (3,565 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
There may be many on here who share the same opinion that a carpet can be clean as it can be.

Others may share the opinion that as long as it looks clean, then it is clean.

However from the first thought you'd have to vacuum every day once the dust settles from the night before. There is no way out of this unless you live in a home where you have a dehumidifier that shifts the moisture out of the way in each room AND also cleans the dust in the air. Short of living in a vacuum with your own air supply is as 100% clinical as you're likely to get.

It is impossible to keep carpet 100% clean 100% all of the time.


Post# 286034 , Reply# 61   6/24/2014 at 11:52 (3,565 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        

sptyks's profile picture

OK, if you need clarification, sufficient power to thoroughly clean a carpet in my opinion is at least 600 watts with airflow of at least 115 cfm along with a brushroll that sufficiently vibrates the carpet.

 

As far as your video goes, almost any vacuum over 300 watts can lift the edge of a one square foot piece of carpet. Just because a vacuum can lift the edge of a very small piece of carpet, doesn't mean that it can pull the air through it along with deeply imbedded dirt.


Post# 286039 , Reply# 62   6/24/2014 at 12:20 (3,565 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        
Mind over matter

It comes down to what worries us the most. Physical debris on a carpeted surface does not bother me unduly, indeed it is the sight of it which troubles me the most, rather than the knowledge it exists at all.

As I said already, another school of thought says that at least carpets hold debris in place until such time it can be cleaned, unlike hard floors which allow it all to become air borne and ultimately breathed in. Even though we only ever had floorboards in the upstairs rooms of our home, my mother had a carpet square under each of the beds so as to trap dust which moved around.

My mother ran a very clean home, indeed for many years worked as a private housekeeper for a number of people. She had a theory that the presence of dirt on a carpeted surface was more an indicator of a poor housekeeping regime in general, rather than a health-hazard in itself. She didn't like the look of it any more than I did, but like me she was more keen to ensure the surfaces which we slept on and ate off were kept scrupulously clean and fresh.


Post# 286043 , Reply# 63   6/24/2014 at 12:39 (3,565 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that if a vacuum cleaner has enough suction to pull a whole piece of carpet up off the floor, then it has more than enough suction to pull tiny particles of dust and dirt out of it.

Sptyks, being perfectly honest, I think you're being deliberately argumentative. Even when presented with video evidence of strong suction and carpet agitation generated with under 800w of motor power, you're arguing the toss. And seeing as you haven't used any of these machines and haven't been a part of the market they were sold in or been in day to day scenarios where they would be used, quite frankly, I suggest you come back and have this conversation when you have.




This post was last edited 06/24/2014 at 13:19
Post# 286046 , Reply# 64   6/24/2014 at 12:52 (3,565 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

Turbo500, are you directing that to me?

Post# 286047 , Reply# 65   6/24/2014 at 12:56 (3,565 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Not at all, Benny.

I'm directing that at the chap who thinks you can't clean a carpet with less than 800w.


Post# 286048 , Reply# 66   6/24/2014 at 13:02 (3,565 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

Oh in that case I do apologise. I thought as I had posted last you meant me.

Post# 286049 , Reply# 67   6/24/2014 at 13:11 (3,565 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Don't worry, Benny. I know you've been in the business long enough to know your stuff. And you were around in the days of lower wattage, clean air vacuums and will of course remember that there were high performing, low wattage, clean air vacuums.

I don't think vacuums clean any better or worse, generally speaking, than they did 30-40 years ago, I just think the methods of getting those results have changed


Post# 286053 , Reply# 68   6/24/2014 at 13:48 (3,565 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

It is an interesting point, as the lower wattage upright cleaners did clean well, but then they also let out a lot of dust too, at least those with shake-out bags did. Add to this the inefficiency of the tools which meant homes might not have been cleaned as well as they are today.

The whole thing is a medley of changing situations, such as the fact that years ago we had less traffic pollution but much more from manufacturing and open fires in homes etc. But homes were also more draughty too, which was not always a bad thing as air circulated well, unlike in the modern home with it's super insulation, where the occupants live, cook, wash, sleep, smoke, and break wind into the same air hour after hour.

Our modern lifestyles means the household of today has a number of new health hazards within them, but the % dirt content of a carpet pile has to be one of the least worrying aspects. For me, fire has always been of great concern as I know of a family who perished in such circumstances. All the new exciting appliances we own today bring with them a new fire hazard, as do the cheaper, thinner, imported extention leads. But these are of course not the only sources of ignition. On the contrary, I have yet to hear of an unclean 80/20 berber falling foul of spontaneous combustion.


Post# 286057 , Reply# 69   6/24/2014 at 14:27 (3,565 days old) by gottahaveahoove (Pittston, Pennsylvania, 18640)        
YIKES!!!!!

gottahaveahoove's profile picture
I WILL say........ GOOD filter paper is esential for our bagged vacs. The bag plant #2 (HOOVER) Company, made quality bags from QUALITY paper since 1952.
Anyone who ever used those bags can say that the paper was of supeior quality. HOOVER even made bags for 'other species'. I'm not gonna throw gas on the fire, but, good fliter bags "clogging" is nonsense! On the packages and in your owner's manual,{I'll wait while you go to your books and/or machines}.......................Ok. clearly states, (Feel free to all read along), Fine materials like face powder,plaster dust,etc can seal the bag early. When using your cleaner for this purpose, it is suggested that you change the bag more often.

Our beloved bagged cleaners work just fine.
I'm just sayin'


Post# 286060 , Reply# 70   6/24/2014 at 14:45 (3,565 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Yes but in the UK (and whether or not it was a claim used in the U.S) Hoover proudly promoted their disposable dust bags as being reuseable, thus saving on cost.

What a pity they forgot to leave out that the dust bag can maybe be used a second time after shaking out after the first, but definitely not a third or fourth time because of clogged pores.


Post# 286235 , Reply# 71   6/26/2014 at 02:54 (3,564 days old) by DaveTranter (Central England, U.K.)        
Just a quick comment

.... With special reference to replies #18, 48, 49, 51......

I doubt that the 'new generation' of cleaners will run any cooler, or be any more reliable. Manufacturers will just use the new regulations as an excuse to market 'smaller/lighter' vacuums with (even??) less metal in them, as they shrink the motors in size to save materials, bus still run them at the same (ridiculously high) energy density and therefore temperature. The trend for years has been to make ever smaller motors running at ever higher rotational speeds in order to achieve the same suction. Higher speed = shorter life, unless some radically new bearing materials are used. Most vacuum motors still use a bronze bush at one end and a tiny roller bearing at the other (AFIK), and after a couple of million revs both types are 'toast'. I did once try to get into a Dyson motor to lubricate it, but discovered that the case is spot-welded together, making maintenance impossible... :-(

.... Which brings us nicely onto 'planned obsolescence'. Nothing built now for domestic use is intended to be dismantled for maintenance. Here in the U.K. we have seen 'Do not open - No user-serviceable parts' on appliances for the last 30-40 years, along with heat-sealed cases to further make the point. If the E.U. 'godfathers' REALLY want to make ecological improvements, they should be legislating to require ALL appliances to be fully repairable, and have a minimum service life (with reasonable maintenance) of (say) 20 years. Anyone manufacturing appliances (of any type) which fail to last such a lifetime should be heavily fined (listening, Mr Dyson, et al??) in order to pay for the cost of early recycling. ;-) Of course, this will never happen, as the collective E.U. Governments make too much money from the sale of new goods.... :-(

I prefer carpets to hard floors, which just allow dust and dirt to blow around, and for me the test of a clean carpet is to whack it with the palm of my hand when the Sun is on it.... No visible puff of dust = clean enough.

Excess technology, and the 'brain' mistaking drag for a 'jam'.... I posted elsewhere about the lack of need for anything on a vacuum cleaner apart from the on/off switch.... ;-)

Please feel free to discuss.....

All best

Dave T


Post# 286237 , Reply# 72   6/26/2014 at 03:24 (3,564 days old) by NYCWriter (New York City)        
Robert ...

nycwriter's profile picture
"Our washers use 1/3 to 1/4 of the water american machines use and we get better wash results."

No you don't. Not by a long shot.


Post# 286238 , Reply# 73   6/26/2014 at 03:37 (3,564 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
No you don't. Not by a long shot

turbo500's profile picture
I beg to differ. Not to get into the great front-loader/top-loader debate, but both machines are 2 different methods of achieving the same results. The main difference being that TL's don't heat the water and require far more additional chemicals and stain removers to achieve the same result as an EU frontloader does with just detergent.

Post# 286239 , Reply# 74   6/26/2014 at 03:51 (3,564 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Um.. sorry to disappoint - the Hotpoint TL I had in the 1990s had a water heater built in. Obtaining a new element for it was very difficult, looking back.

Also the current LG top loader my relatives have in India ALSO has a heater element.


Post# 286240 , Reply# 75   6/26/2014 at 04:04 (3,564 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        
Top Loaders

As I read it, reference was being made to American top-loaders, but I could be wrong.

Post# 286241 , Reply# 76   6/26/2014 at 04:04 (3,564 days old) by NYCWriter (New York City)        
Again, no ...

nycwriter's profile picture
"The main difference being that TL's don't heat the water and require far more additional chemicals and stain removers to achieve the same result as an EU frontloader does with just detergent."

You're alleging that EU frontloaders "achieve" the same results as American toploaders; they do not. In my experience, at best, what you get with EU frontloaders is a mediocre clean surpassed by even the most mediocre top loaders.



Post# 286242 , Reply# 77   6/26/2014 at 04:16 (3,564 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

Main problem is UK families don't really know how to cook, clean, and wash any more. It has all gone by the board. Feel free as grown men to argue the point from behind your keyboards, but try not to take it all too seriously. Life is a very short commodity.

Post# 286243 , Reply# 78   6/26/2014 at 04:19 (3,564 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        
Reference to US-top loaders only

sebo_fan's profile picture
Oh for heavens sake

Example LG WT1201CV (its an American model, base line top loader LG washer)

It has an INTERNAL water heater built in. You might not be able to find that info on LG US website, but certainly this review from a buyer from 2011 on Amazon.com states it -and he's an engineer.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO sebo_fan's LINK


Post# 286244 , Reply# 79   6/26/2014 at 04:27 (3,564 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Yes, Benny, I was referring to US Top Loaders. The old UK Hotpoint TL's had heat settings the same as the FL's.

NYCWriter, bold statements considering you use a TL at home. I'd love to see some evidence of this, seeing as you apparantly think everybody in Europe is walking around wearing dirty clothes.

Speaking from experience of using a US TL Whirlpool in a previous job to wash kitchen cloths, table cloths and seat covers when I worked for a local childrens activity centre, that machine never got a damn thing clean. It would leave stains and nothing smelt fresh. It was much better to take the washing home and do it in a proper FL. It was eventually replaced by a EU Miele Little Giant, which got everything clean.

I'm not blaming this on the machine. The combination of that type of machine and a European detergent just didn't work. If we were using a US detergent and all the additional products that are required to go along with it, I'm sure the results would have been fine.

As I said, growning up in a house with 4 kids (3 boys) you can imagine the level of washing and the stains involved - food, mud, grass stains, paint, pen etc. You name it, we washed it. And yet they always came out of the machine clean with no need for additional chemicals and stain removers in the load. Unlike a US TL with no actual heat setting that requires additional chemicals just for basic washing like keeping sheets white.




This post was last edited 06/26/2014 at 04:48
Post# 286245 , Reply# 80   6/26/2014 at 05:32 (3,564 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Actually Benny, following on from last night's Watchdog consumer news slot, it would appear that most of the UK can't be bothered to shop properly, either. Most do online food shopping, which I have never done, as of yet.

Two of my friends who work (one who is part time, the other full time but off at weekends) have also announced at the age of 30, they're both hiring cleaners to come in as they can't be bothered to clean home. Neither of them are married, but both are blokes who simply can't be bothered.

Seems like I must be of very few who loves to do things the old fashioned way. Lemon juice, vinegar, "how to clean by Kim & Aggie" cleaning bible, steam mop and a handful of vacuums I get to use myself.


Post# 286246 , Reply# 81   6/26/2014 at 06:14 (3,564 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
^I remember when I first left home 6 years ago, a friend of my then flatmate also left home for the first time around the same time as us. He hired a cleaner, lived off take aways and took his washing home for his Mum every weekend. WHAT. IS. THE. POINT?

There's 2 of us at home. Both work long hours. I leave home at 7:20am, and don't get home until between 6:30 and 7pm. Ro has a more flexible schedule because of the nature of his job, but that also means he can sometimes be out late into the evenings or have to be in work early. We still manage to do what we have to.

It's pure laziness.


Post# 286260 , Reply# 82   6/26/2014 at 11:40 (3,563 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        
Washing Machines...

sptyks's profile picture

 "The main difference being that TL's don't heat the water and require far more additional chemicals and stain removers to achieve the same result as an EU frontloader does with just detergent."

 

We all know that this is not necessarily the case.

 

Turbo500: Maybe you should refrain from posting on this subject until you get all your facts straight.


Post# 286273 , Reply# 83   6/26/2014 at 13:04 (3,563 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

I have to stay in a Navy Lodge from time to time when on travel to San Diego. The laundry rooms have a line of expensive top of the line front loading washers and dryers. I detest the washers more than I can possibly express. They simply do not rinse the detergent out of the clothes adequately, and they leave suds on the inside of the machine that are impossible to avoide touching your clothes as you unload them after washing. I am careful to measure the detergent and not use too much.

My old 90's vintage Maytag top loader at home does a far better job of cleaning my clothes, never under any circumstances leaves suds after the final rinse and only takes half the time of the top loader to do so. Why any washing machine requires a full hour to wash a load of clothes is beyond me.

I also detest that once started, you cannot stop the machine and throw in something you neglected to put in the load before starting. I will never, ever, under any circumstance own one. I will find ways to keep those old Maytags running. Parts remain readily available.

The popularity of front loading washing machines completely escapes me. It is another uninformed trend like bagless vacuums that needs a stake driven deeply into it's heart.


Post# 286274 , Reply# 84   6/26/2014 at 13:11 (3,563 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

My experiences on travel in Europe was that European washing machines did a lousy job of washing clothes. Whenever possible I tried to use a laundromat on a US military base if there was one near where I was traveling. They generally had US sourced commercial washers and dryers, not European machines. One washing machine in particular at a German guest house left all of my clothes a near uniform grey color. I wore them but I wasn't happy.

Post# 286275 , Reply# 85   6/26/2014 at 13:19 (3,563 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

$599 list price for a Kenmore Elite Intuition canister vacuum and it might last four to five years before something breaks or fails that is beyond economical repair. That's a lot of money for that kind of throw away junk. Everything about them feels cheap and nasty. The Chinese motors in them are kludge, nothing like the stout double ball bearing Ametek Lamb motors Kenmore used to use.

To get something with the sort of durability one used to expect from a Sears vacuum you have to pay four figures for a Riccar or Simplicity, or darn close to four figures for a top of the line Miele. And even then, I don't think the plastics will prove as durable as that of a 1980's or early to mid 1990's Kenmore.



Post# 286277 , Reply# 86   6/26/2014 at 13:36 (3,563 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        
pure laziness

That is as may be to an outsider, however, to the person who has the disposable income to pay for it, if they can get a good service provider, it's win-win. It is also very good for the economy as it means it helps keep people employed. I have to say I am all for -and always have been- paying someone else to do a job which I don't like doing. As long as there has been the means to pay for it -for instance the opportunity to go and work for the money- I've generally paid to get work done for me. Someone who is better skilled and enjoys that job will always do it much more efficiently.

I have a professional cleaner now. I see hiring her as no different from using a dentist, plumber, decorator, and doctor. It's all about perception.



Post# 286280 , Reply# 87   6/26/2014 at 14:02 (3,563 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture

Ok, the great front loader vs top loader debate is never ending.

 

As I've already mentioned, we had a Whirlpool TL at work. I also had the misfortune of using a Speed Queen TL whilst traveling in Europe a few years ago. And the Maytag's at my sisters uni. I found them all excessively large and unnecessary, used too much water and the results were average, at best. Needlessly wasteful. Although the Speed Queen was probably the least offensive.

 

I've never seen a US TL with full temperature selection - just "cold", "warm" and "hot". Not even adequate IMO.

 

Seeing as this debate really isn't going to go anywhere (just like it hasn't done for the last god knows how many years on Autowasher), lets get back on topic, shall we?

 

 


Post# 286283 , Reply# 88   6/26/2014 at 15:44 (3,563 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Apart from SEBO and Hoover with their TP2/3 series, has there been any other upright on the market which has a motor filter on top of the hood before the bin? I'm just wondering about this, with talk about filters and what Benny refers to in his last response regarding some vacuums that have low power and still put out dust, in particular vacuums of old.

Im also wondering and from where I have seen it - cleaning tools that have vents in the recesses of a machine, where the suction air takes the dust off the cleaning tools when they are stored on the vacuum cleaner.





Post# 286299 , Reply# 89   6/26/2014 at 17:17 (3,563 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

Really Sebo_fan? I wonder what using suction to clean the cleaning tools does to the suction available to vacuum the floor? Just saying .............

Btw, I am weird enough to use the bare hose, or sometimes the crevice tool to suck the dust bunnies and hair off a tool I just finished using, especially floor brushes, before I stow them. But self cleaning? Oh my! Makes me think of those Japanese commodes that wash you with warm water and then blow you dry underneath, lol :o


Post# 286314 , Reply# 90   6/26/2014 at 18:59 (3,563 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Well if it has two motors, DT, I'm sure a machine can cope.

Post# 286345 , Reply# 91   6/26/2014 at 22:34 (3,563 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

I guess I'm not following Sebo_fan. Only one of those motors provides suction, the other drives the brush. Bleed off suction for tool cleaning and you have less suction for carpet or floor cleaning. It's kind of like opening the little slot on the end of the hose to decrease suction.

Post# 286380 , Reply# 92   6/27/2014 at 03:38 (3,563 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
to suck the dust bunnies and hair off a tool

turbo500's profile picture
That's not weird at all, that's just sensible :P.

Post# 286385 , Reply# 93   6/27/2014 at 05:00 (3,563 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Depends on what vacuum cleaner you might have, DT.

Take SEBO for example - some of their uprights have two motors - the Felix is a good example. Due to the tight sealed suction, there is enough power from low to high that shifts dirt quickly.


Post# 286398 , Reply# 94   6/27/2014 at 10:01 (3,562 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

Sebo_fan, I am pretty familiar with Sebo and Windsor uprights. I have two of them. One of those two motors spins the brush and provides no suction. Those vacuums are the equivalent of a canister with it's vacuum motor and powered brush with it's separate motor. The brush motor doesn't add suction, only agitation. If you bleed off suction from the suction motor to clean tools, that is less suction to clean floors. You can't get around that detail. Now whether or not a particular vacuum has suction to spare is an argument that can never be settled (see the discussion of vacuum wattage vs how well they clean a given floor).

Btw, I deliberatly gave the two motor Windsor uprights a pass because they are too heavy and are tiring to push around, and they are clumsy to use in carpeted bedrooms. Nein, danke.


Post# 286400 , Reply# 95   6/27/2014 at 10:09 (3,562 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        
SEBO Felix

sptyks's profile picture

So DT, have you ever tried a SEBO Felix which has 2 motors and lighter than Windsor. If so, what are your thoughts on the Felix?


Post# 286470 , Reply# 96   6/27/2014 at 16:37 (3,562 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
Im quite confused DT

Your profile states that you are into Windsor vacs and that your cleaning crew has them. You also appear to like them. You own two S12 models by Windsor, or as we used to be able to get them in the UK, the SEBO G1/G2 series with manual height adjustment.

The Felix is marginally lighter than the X series in my opinion, but you win the swivel plus of the Felix plus it can be used with suction only tools, thus at its most maximum weighs 5kg without the PN added.

Im not saying that SEBO should add suction-cleaning tools to their roster of design, but moving on with the duster idea that Electrolux/Eureka fitted to some of their bagless uprights, I'm sure cleaning off tools once they are installed into a cradle of some sort could be cleaned off. It is just a thought I had, not an intentional move for any brand to pick up and I was just interested to know if anyone knew of any vacuum cleaner that has those kind of tool holders.

If we are going to go pedantic about vacuum watts vs cleaning a floor, not all floors are level, not all kinds of carpet have the same pile. There are many variables to consider, it's not just about a brush roll or whether the machine has auto adjustment or manual.


Post# 291040 , Reply# 97   7/30/2014 at 08:58 (3,529 days old) by adamthemieleman (North Yorkshire )        

Well here is a surprise, James whining on like a little crybaby. (Oh my heart bleeds, I'll just get out my violin)

I was a fan of him and Dyson, until for no good explainable reason they turned down my application to work for them. Apparently I did not show enough skill in engineering on the CV and it wouldn't be fair for other applicants. OK, so at uni we have massive amounts of resources and time? Is this fair on me though, judging without even knowing?
So much for a company wanting engineers in a so-called shortage!

Total bull, as is all the nonsense about the plastic monstrosities being powerful and 'the best' and how they never loose suction, ever.

It will be back to Miele for me, don't know why I left them in the first place, and I shall sell only Miele. After all, we all know how a Dyson deals with sand... Even reps tell us not too use sand. Oh dear, how that opens a can of worms! All I need is red sand, black carpet and a interceptor, and their sales will drop like a tarts knickers.

Maybe I am too good for Dyson, and I know the truth of all the shameless marketing and empty claims, so actually I should be thankful, I will apply to work for Miele instead. Go back to the hole you came from Jimmy and stop talking tripe.


Post# 291043 , Reply# 98   7/30/2014 at 09:21 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 291047 , Reply# 99   7/30/2014 at 09:46 (3,529 days old) by turbomaster1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        

turbomaster1984's profile picture
It wont take a disheartened sales man to cut Dysons sales.

Its going to be very simple for customers to buy a new vac now and very simple for JD to have the market swept from under his feet thanks to these new amazing labels.

Just like when they took off with washing machines this will happen.

Any customer wanting a new vac will look for AAA ratings on machines first.

When they find the machines with these ratings I reckon they will look for a price they like.

and finally check the brand to make sure that fits too along with features they may want.

When folk start realising they dont need to spend Dyson money to get AAA ratings and its purely down to finding features and reliability folk will flock from buying Dysons and start buying other brands.

What with Vax's 6 year warranty, a NLOS machine with features galore and all for around £100 that ought to be enough to stick him out of business .

Lets see how 'Cinetic' his bank balance stays then haha


Post# 291057 , Reply# 100   7/30/2014 at 11:01 (3,529 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()        

Welcome back, adamthemieleman :)

Post# 291058 , Reply# 101   7/30/2014 at 11:04 (3,529 days old) by adamthemieleman (North Yorkshire )        

Yes Dysonboy that is what I am saying. It is a long story but it is out of principle. Dyson are nothing but cheats and liars.

I can't remember where I found out, but the DC41 claim of being the most powerful upright is a claim based on that machine along with two, yes TWO cheap bag less machines. Hardly powerful of ALL uprights is it. Try any Dyson upright against my S7 or a Sebo and you'll see the difference.

Dyson has got as far as it has by marketing and deception, basically no moral backbone.

Yes Turbomaster, I know but one can only try. Does anyone know where I might find a vacuum interceptor?


Post# 291059 , Reply# 102   7/30/2014 at 11:37 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

dys0nb0y's profile picture
Sorry but I don't think Dyson does cheats and lies if is not true they can't sayit What you are saying is just poo sorry but the DC 41 Claim you're saying is just not true they have to test it between most vacuum I've never seen the claim the most powerful upright i have seen the claim the most powerful upright at the cleaner head. I know why you don't like Dyson any more because they don't want you to work for them. I'm hundred percent sure it's just a rumour where you got information about the claim

Post# 291060 , Reply# 103   7/30/2014 at 11:46 (3,529 days old) by SeamusUK (Dover Kent UK)        
Dyson.....

Dyson AAA Rating Upright £429.99 5 Year Guarantee
Vax AAA Rating Upright £229.99 6 year Guarantee
No brainer really .....
Seamus


Post# 291061 , Reply# 104   7/30/2014 at 11:50 (3,529 days old) by SeamusUK (Dover Kent UK)        
Dysons on Sand????

They really don't work........
Miele would have similar performance to the Riccar I would imagine......
Seamus


CLICK HERE TO GO TO SeamusUK's LINK


Post# 291062 , Reply# 105   7/30/2014 at 11:51 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 291063 , Reply# 106   7/30/2014 at 11:54 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

dys0nb0y's profile picture
But I've got to say someone the vaxs look good

Post# 291065 , Reply# 107   7/30/2014 at 12:24 (3,529 days old) by adamthemieleman (North Yorkshire )        

Ok, not two but a handful then as seen in this diagram:
www.dyson.co.uk/twicethesuction/d...

Consumer reports: A DC41 is equally as bad at cleaning carpets as a Eureka
www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/...

Hardly all vacuums is it as he claims. Think of all the thousands of them out there. Oh, I like how they only test bagless though, no Sebo, Miele or Kirby. Hmm...

By the way dysonboy, change your profile picture, no one needs a Dyson, especially not over a Miele anyway


Post# 291066 , Reply# 108   7/30/2014 at 12:36 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 291067 , Reply# 109   7/30/2014 at 12:36 (3,529 days old) by parwaz786 ( )        

If you get rude Vax staff, can you be rude back then? :D

Post# 291068 , Reply# 110   7/30/2014 at 12:41 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

dys0nb0y's profile picture
If vaxs Is rude be rude back :) lol

Post# 291070 , Reply# 111   7/30/2014 at 13:08 (3,529 days old) by adamthemieleman (North Yorkshire )        

You seem to be forgetting dysonboy, that suction alone does not clean carpets.
Again this seems to be false advertising. Simply saying it has twice the suction, does not mean it cleans better, as we know, agitation is key. This is the hype dyson uses to con people in to an overpriced monstrosity.

Seamus, I found a video. Thats the inceptor thing I would like to try. I bet even a Miele turbo nozzle will out clean that Dyson.

Watching this video, why would you want to spend £400 on a DC41, when you can spend half on a Miele S7. £200 is a lot of bags, 80 actually, and they will last for years and years


CLICK HERE TO GO TO adamthemieleman's LINK


Post# 291073 , Reply# 112   7/30/2014 at 13:22 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 291075 , Reply# 113   7/30/2014 at 13:41 (3,529 days old) by adamthemieleman (North Yorkshire )        

Yes I am annoyed, and you would be if you were in my shoes, its a long story, but in essence building someone up to knock them down, especially a life long dream. My last contact from them was that even if I did an engineering degree, there would be no guarantee. I said ok, what if I work on some concepts at home, apparently this would not count as engineering acumen despite it developing and testing new ideas.

I would not be surprised if it is down to some part on my disability, I would not seem to be the 'character' that Dyson want.
Dyson have no moral scruples, thats not the type of company I want to work for, or to sell to my customers.

What Dyson say is not what Dyson actually do. All those believe that Dyson moved production from the UK because they couldn't get planning permission is deluded, as look, Dyson are expanding their campus! Translated it means, 'we wanted to make more money'.

And there will be a backlash from other members for you saying the S7 is a monstrosity.


Post# 291077 , Reply# 114   7/30/2014 at 13:55 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

dys0nb0y's profile picture
Hiya, Sorry you have had such a bad experience with Dyson not giving you a chance. You actually sound quite upset by it. What is your disability? I have aspergers - is it anything similar? This is why I have always been so obsessed with vacuum cleaners especially Dysons. Hence I will always love them and get upset that you won't sell them!!! I would love to meet Mr Dyson. Any ho! Hope you will sell Dysons in the future.

Post# 291078 , Reply# 115   7/30/2014 at 13:55 (3,529 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()        

Thing is dysonboy, Vax staff are very kind & dealt with me when my Air3 floorhead broke. They were kind, phone time was quick & delivery was very speedy.

So I don't see where you get the fact that Vax staff are rude, because in reality they're not. At least their machines don't cost an arm & a leg to purchase.

So if you want to be forever tied to Dyson then that's up to you, I'll let you happily believe false claims made against cheap bagless vacs. :)


Post# 291079 , Reply# 116   7/30/2014 at 14:01 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 291080 , Reply# 117   7/30/2014 at 14:02 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

dys0nb0y's profile picture
I forgot to say the S7 is not a monstrosity is just pretty big

Post# 291082 , Reply# 118   7/30/2014 at 14:04 (3,529 days old) by adamthemieleman (North Yorkshire )        

Yes dysonboy, I have aspergers, so I am pretty much similar to you. Its always nice meeting a fellow aspie!

Ever since Dyson, I was in the same thought as you are now, I too idolised James, as like him I managed to overcome odds, but after one too many disappoints with Dyson now, they have lost a loyal fan forever. It's gutting, my late grandparents were the ones that encouraged me along with Dyson, they even bought one for me to use when I was staying over, despite me feeling I have let them down, I know they are looking down on me saying, 'move on and ignore them adam, you can achieve much better'. Besides, dyson did say without a doubt, I am talented at what I do, so it will go to good use.


Post# 291083 , Reply# 119   7/30/2014 at 14:05 (3,529 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()        

What about Vax Adam I'm sure they were advertising jobs for designers.

Post# 291088 , Reply# 120   7/30/2014 at 14:39 (3,529 days old) by parwaz786 ( )        

What kind of people would Dyson employ? I want to work at Dyson

Post# 291090 , Reply# 121   7/30/2014 at 14:40 (3,529 days old) by dys0nb0y (Luton)        

dys0nb0y's profile picture
Yes - shame really I think Dyson have just become too big and lost the human touch. James has forgotten how he had to struggle. Sounds like you have lots of skills you can use. I think you have the idea job - I would love to work in Currys selling vacs, that is my dream job. Sure your grandparents are very proud of you and just wanted you to be happy in whatever you do. Don't forget, please still sell Dysons - I am sure one day you will like them again!! I have gone off them before but always come back to them eventually.

Post# 291097 , Reply# 122   7/30/2014 at 15:21 (3,529 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        
Disability

It has been a good deal of years since I was involved in HR and recruitment, so I admit I know so little about it now. However, I was given to understand that a disability or any other aspect of one's life which requires a whole section of an application form of it's own was in fact an advantage to the applicant as the potential employer could not be seen to be discriminating? I was also lead to believe that larger organisations are obliged to fulfill a "quota" too, so it could possibly be that Dyson is already staffed by a high number people with aspergers. Of course if that is the case, dare I say that you may be better placed than most to persevere with your applications to Dyson. I am sorry to learn of your news Adam, but don't let it hold you back.

Post# 291220 , Reply# 123   7/31/2014 at 04:26 (3,529 days old) by oliveoiltinfoil (England, UK)        

oliveoiltinfoil's profile picture
Very interesting reading through these comments on peoples interpretations on power and what is and isn't "deep cleaning". I am glad these new legislations have come in and what they are forcing manufacturers to do, and its interesting to see how different companies are responding. Vax/TTI are responding well, having already got a range of "eco" labelled products out which are as powerful, or more effective at cleaning as some of their models with 3 times the wattage motors. I can vouch for that as my vax eco air I made a thread of last week is the only vacuum that sticks itself to the carpet as you pull back, the rear wheels lift off the ground. I put that down to good seal of the head, and the machine is very light, it isn't hard to push or pull, just very nice knowing that it is deep cleaning, and the dirt which bounces around before it gets sucked up, adds to that sense, and it is 820 watts combined. Probably 700 watts for the suction motor, 120 for floor head maybe ?

With any type of motor, the wattage or capacity says nothing about it efficiency. In the same way my Audi TDI is quicker and has more pulling power than my dads Lexus he had 10 years ago, yet I get 60 MPG out of mine, in the same way, numatic can say their 580w motor has more airflow than their 1200 motor, but obviously uses less power.

If manufacturers can suddenly do all this now without scratching their heads thinking how they can produce low wattage powerful motors, why haven't they done it before? We all know they used to, up until he 90's, 500, 700 and 900 watt motors were popular. I guess we all know its about making something as cheap as possible, profit making. The new EU reg's are a good idea, I like the A to G rating of pick up performance on carpets and hard floors, and exhaust emissions. People will be able to make a ore accurate decision about purchasing their cleaners and should spur more competition.

I still stand by what I first said when we heard about these regulations. I hope the EU are doing this to simply spur innovation and make manufacturers actually work on the products they are producing, I hope it's none of this environmental rubbish, even though it helps, if they are really worried about that, focus on making kettles more energy efficient, people use them a lot more than vacuums!

Also, someone here mentioned about twin fan motors. Could someone explain what that is ? Is it a clean air motor with two fans?


Post# 291239 , Reply# 124   7/31/2014 at 09:32 (3,528 days old) by DesertTortoise ()        

I believe it means two fan stages in the suction motor. Nothing new about that.

What I am seeing is a movement towards smaller lower power but higher rpm motors. They spin then literally ten thousand rpm or more faster than more traditional motors. Often these will also have single stage fans, probably to save money on manufacturing. So what you have are very high rpm motors, 32000 rpm and up, with single stages that can match or sometimes even exceed the air watts of the more traditional motors (look at the specs of a Lamb 119539 single stage 5.1 inch motor with an eye popping 484 air watts and compare these to the specs of the well regarded but more traditional Lamb 115923 two stage 5.7 inch motor with 447 air watts) but they are doing this at the expense of longevity. I have three decade old vacuums that use these traditional motors and, judging from the amount of carbon brush remaining, they are not even half way through their service life, and they have at least one overhaul maybe two before the armature or stator are beyond saving. You won't get that kind of service out of one of these new high rpm motors.


Post# 355724 , Reply# 125   7/9/2016 at 09:57 (2,819 days old) by n0oxy (Saint Louis Missouri, United States)        
dyson, motor wattage and performance

Was looking at some older threads and found this one. First, I'm not a fan of bagless vacuums, Dyson or any other company and would never have one, they're messy to empty and if they use filters, they will clog much more quickly. Dyson has done a lot of marketing which is why they have done so well, many people don't take the time to really research what they are buying, if it sounds good and looks good, they buy it. Regarding motor power, I live in the United States, and I'm not really a fan of governments telling manufacturers how things must be made. A much better approach is for consumers to start voting with what they purchase for lower power, well designed vacuums, if they refuse to do the research and buy a bad product, then it's on them. Many times we have governments passing laws that make it no longer necessary for people to take personal responsibility for things. All of this talk about motor power reminds me of some older vacuums that clean very well with motors that are much lower power. I have an electrolux 1205, made in the early 1970's. Motor power is 535 watts. Would it win a suction contest against a current vacuum model? No, but is it able to remove the dirt from the floor and other surfaces? Yes. Another vacuum that comes to mind is the Sunbeam Dual Deluxe. This came out in the late 1950's and actually could compete with the suction and airflow of a current vacuum. It used a 900 watt motor which was the highest wattage of a vacuum back then. It used one fan and it was about the size of a dinner plate. So, while I'm not a fan of the government forcing manufacturers to lower the power on their motors, it is definitely possible to clean just as well with a motor in the 500 to 900 watt range.

Post# 355926 , Reply# 126   7/12/2016 at 09:41 (2,816 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture
The reality is that consumers are not voting because most if not all couldn't care less about a mere vacuum cleaner chalking up a power bill.

In my opinion there's no point in quoting older vintage vacuums because that was in the past and lets face it, all of these brands that you mention also sold on the believe that the higher the power, the better the suction. Just a simple marketing advertising tool to push the product along the sales chart.



Post# 355978 , Reply# 127   7/13/2016 at 04:13 (2,816 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Isn't there already a limit on vacuums in the US, but in AMPS? I believe the most powerful you can get is 12 AMP (about 1200w?)...correct me if I'm wrong.

Post# 355983 , Reply# 128   7/13/2016 at 06:12 (2,816 days old) by tolivac (Greenville,NC)        

Under current NEC electric codes they specify an 80% continous load for US 15A 120V branch circuits.Think the portable vac makers stay in this so they don't have chance of violating the codes.Think its a voluntary thing.Just about all US portable vacuums have the NEMA 15A 120V plug.Cn be 3 wire-has third pin ground or 2 pin polarized-no third pin ground connector on the plug-used on all plastic body vacuums.12A qualifies as the 80% load for a 15A line.I have run my MD Silentmaster on a 15A circuit with no problems.Its rated right at 15A 120V.Plug and outlet run cool-even if the vacuum has been run for a long time-like about an hour.MD suggests in the owners manual that it be run off a dedicated (no other appliances connected) 20A 120V outlet-the machine has the 15A plug.18A is considered the 80% load for a 20A 120V circuit.

Post# 356004 , Reply# 129   7/13/2016 at 12:12 (2,815 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        

sptyks's profile picture

Chris, The maximum amperage for a vacuum cleaner in the US is 12 Amps which is equal to 1440 watts. The formula ic calculated thusly: 12amps x 120 volts = 1440 watts.

 


Post# 356012 , Reply# 130   7/13/2016 at 14:09 (2,815 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture
Thanks Stan, I knew it was something like that

Post# 356021 , Reply# 131   7/13/2016 at 16:05 (2,815 days old) by sptyks (Skowhegan, Maine)        

sptyks's profile picture

You're welcome Chris.

 



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.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy