Riccar 8850 Airflow Losses

The first two measurements were easy to get, the last one (CFM at the nozzle) required me to build an airflow box. I think this pic should easily illustrate where and by how much CFM is lost in this machine. I think this is good performance from a 1990's designed bagged cleaner.

From the base of the machine through the very short hose to the head assembly, there is a loss of 109-100 = 9 CFM. From the hose connection to the nozzle, there is a loss of 100-71 = 29 CFM.

Total airflow losses from the canister base to the power nozzle (held at a 45 degree angle to the floor) is 109-71 = 38 CFM or about 35% of the original airflow.

Last note: the rug plate opening is slightly larger than average (about 30 square inches), but CFM density is slightly below average, about 2.4 CFM/Sq. In. If you ever wondered if this expensive 12 Amp beast was capable of deep cleaning, I would argue it probably would be, but you might have to go over the same spot more than once.

Bill


Forum Topics & Rules Manuals & Literature	New users Click-here to sign-up

Post# 364138 12/24/2016 at 15:29 (2,673 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)
Checkrate/Likes The first two measurements were easy to get, the last one (CFM at the nozzle) required me to build an airflow box. I think this pic should easily illustrate where and by how much CFM is lost in this machine. I think this is good performance from a 1990's designed bagged cleaner. From the base of the machine through the very short hose to the head assembly, there is a loss of 109-100 = 9 CFM. From the hose connection to the nozzle, there is a loss of 100-71 = 29 CFM. Total airflow losses from the canister base to the power nozzle (held at a 45 degree angle to the floor) is 109-71 = 38 CFM or about 35% of the original airflow. Last note: the rug plate opening is slightly larger than average (about 30 square inches), but CFM density is slightly below average, about 2.4 CFM/Sq. In. If you ever wondered if this expensive 12 Amp beast was capable of deep cleaning, I would argue it probably would be, but you might have to go over the same spot more than once. Bill