What is the Weirdest Vacuums You've Seen?

[vac14012]

My pick is the Samsung Motion Sync from 2015. It was essentially a response to the Dyson Ball Uprights with a weird gimmick.

It had two dustbins and two motors. One for the main vacuum and another for an integrated handheld vacuum.

A fun idea for commercials or something but it was terrible in practice. It was essentially the same thing as using a hose but worse. It had its own weaker motor so the suction was poor, and another bin you'd have to empty. And it was corded so there wasn't even an argument of being able to take it to another room, like those old uprights with a dustbuster in the middle.

Otherwise though the vacuum was fine I think, if it had a hose would have been unremarkable.

 

[cheesewonton]

The Kenmore Ultravac, a rare tandem air canister and power nozzle lash up from Kenmore only sold for about six months and not everywhere in the US. The canister was a normal enough 4.5 hp Whispertone but the Powermate II was unique. Not only did it have a direct air suction motor that drove the brush roll similar to how Orecks are set up, but the power nozzle had a dust bin and detachable power cord. The Powermate II could be detached from the hose and used as a stand alone lightweight upright for quick clean ups. Emptying the bin was as simple as attaching the hose from the canister and sucking the dirt out. I have one. The Powermate II was a great idea but the implementation is not so nice, fragile and kind of wobbly because they wanted the handle to be able to rotate 90 degrees when the hose was attached like their normal wands to allow the thing to get under furniture. I don't have images of mine yet but here's a video of someone else's.

 

[panasonicvac]

I always thought the Hoover Z were the weirdest machines ever.

 

[vacerator]

Voorwerk to me.

 

[Ant_Tenna]

+1 for the Hoover Z, not surprised someone beat me to it.

Just behind the Z in my book of weirdest vacuums is the Dyson DC15. The original Ball. I cannot believe this was a machine that got greenlit for production. I've been told it was still in the prototype stage when it was put out and that really explains the weirdness. Even by early Dyson standards its just such a quirky bizarre machine. Naturally I have an Animal variant and love it. The funny thing is this is actually one of the better cleaning earlier Dysons; way better than the DC07, DC14, and even its replacement the DC25. The first one to have a dual motor setup too. It actually uses the same brush roll setup as the DC21/23 Motorhead canisters

 

[vacerator]

Costco had these on sale a while back. Our neighbor grabbed two. One for the main floor, one for their basement which has berber carpeting. They love them.

 

[centralsweeper63]

The Kenmore you linked looks very cool. I too have a dc15 and love it. I really want a c23 to try.

 

[rlsellman21]

+1 for the Hoover Z, not surprised someone beat me to it.

Just behind the Z in my book of weirdest vacuums is the Dyson DC15. The original Ball. I cannot believe this was a machine that got greenlit for production. I've been told it was still in the prototype stage when it was put out and that really explains the weirdness. Even by early Dyson standards its just such a quirky bizarre machine. Naturally I have an Animal variant and love it. The funny thing is this is actually one of the better cleaning earlier Dysons; way better than the DC07, DC14, and even its replacement the DC25. The first one to have a dual motor setup too. It actually uses the same brush roll setup as the DC21/23 Motorhead canisters

View attachment 171047View attachment 171048

I would love to get a DC15. It would be nice to compare it to my UP30.

 

[rlsellman21]

My pick is the Samsung Motion Sync from 2015. It was essentially a response to the Dyson Ball Uprights with a weird gimmick.

It had two dustbins and two motors. One for the main vacuum and another for an integrated handheld vacuum.

A fun idea for commercials or something but it was terrible in practice. It was essentially the same thing as using a hose but worse. It had its own weaker motor so the suction was poor, and another bin you'd have to empty. And it was corded so there wasn't even an argument of being able to take it to another room, like those old uprights with a dustbuster in the middle.

Otherwise though the vacuum was fine I think, if it had a hose would have been unremarkable.

They actually did have a model that used a hose. It was pretty much a DC41 knockoff. I'm amazed that Dyson didn't sue them for patent infringement.

 

[cheesewonton]

+1 for the Hoover Z, not surprised someone beat me to it.

Just behind the Z in my book of weirdest vacuums is the Dyson DC15. The original Ball. I cannot believe this was a machine that got greenlit for production. I've been told it was still in the prototype stage when it was put out and that really explains the weirdness. Even by early Dyson standards its just such a quirky bizarre machine. Naturally I have an Animal variant and love it. The funny thing is this is actually one of the better cleaning earlier Dysons; way better than the DC07, DC14, and even its replacement the DC25. The first one to have a dual motor setup too. It actually uses the same brush roll setup as the DC21/23 Motorhead canisters

View attachment 171047View attachment 171048

The air path on the Dyson is convoluted. So many direction changes and airflow losses.

 

[rlsellman21]

The air path on the Dyson is convoluted. So many direction changes and airflow losses.

I'm pretty sure the DC15 still pulled pretty good numbers for air wattage. Of course the Ball design for DC41 and later models is much more streamlined. The Ball Animal 3 pulls 290 air watts, which is incredible lol

 

[blackheart]

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.

 

[kirbyclassiciii]

Does anybody think Kirby's COMVAC line of commercial-use vacuums, in particular the CV1300 and CV1600, looked a bit weird?

Both stood out for different reasons:
1. The CV1300 was manufactured using leftover parts from the 500/Sanitronic line, also shared with the American Lincoln Super-Sweep and SuperVac 180.


2. The more contemporary-looking CV1600 had a unique giant top cord hook for its extra-long 60-foot cord, and it had the power switch built into it. It also had a dual-purpose bag system (both shake out and disposable bags).


~Ben

 

[rlsellman21]

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.View attachment 171051

Same crappy cyclone design lol

 

[desiredname]

How about the Dirt Devil Platinum Force? The massive filter and simple air path gives it good performance for a bagless

 

[niclonnic]

My pick would be the Fantom Wildcat. It was released in 2001 and was pathetic in every possible way! However, I've never owned one myself, so I had to rely on research for this info.

For a Fantom, the Wildcat had a very bizarre and quirky design. Its handle was offset, and the vacuum had what the company called "direct power engineering." Essentially, this design placed the main, suction motor up high, just below the Fantom logo. It minimized twists and turns in the air path, allegedly to improve performance. But despite claiming to have a 95 PPR (power performance ratio), this ended up being a BIG LIE.

The brushroll, driven by a separate motor, had soft bristles and a very narrow diameter. This meant that the Wildcat greatly struggled with deep cleaning; it only got surface dirt at best. Also, the build quality was cheap. The biggest weak point of the Wildcat was the handle; it was held on by a thin plastic bracket that just snapped onto the vacuum. This made the handle extremely fragile; heavy usage could cause it to snap off. Luckily, there is a carrying handle on the back to save the main handle.

With these aformentioned flaws, I can see how the Wildcat put Fantom out of business later that year, not to mention the expiration of Dyson's dual cyclonic license.

 

[rlsellman21]

How about the Dirt Devil Platinum Force? The massive filter and simple air path gives it good performance for a bagless

Those Fantoms behind it would outperform it in terms of maintaining suction power. The filter in the Platinum Force upright will get clogged with dust, and cleaning it would be as messy as emptying a Shop Vac.

 

[rlsellman21]

My pick would be the Fantom Wildcat. It was released in 2001 and was pathetic in every possible way! However, I've never owned one myself, so I had to rely on research for this info.

For a Fantom, the Wildcat had a very bizarre and quirky design. Its handle was offset, and the vacuum had what the company called "direct power engineering." Essentially, this design placed the main, suction motor up high, just below the Fantom logo. It minimized twists and turns in the air path, allegedly to improve performance. But despite claiming to have a 95 PPR (power performance ratio), this ended up being a BIG LIE.

The brushroll, driven by a separate motor, had soft bristles and a very narrow diameter. This meant that the Wildcat greatly struggled with deep cleaning; it only got surface dirt at best. Also, the build quality was cheap. The biggest weak point of the Wildcat was the handle; it was held on by a thin plastic bracket that just snapped onto the vacuum. This made the handle extremely fragile; heavy usage could cause it to snap off. Luckily, there is a carrying handle on the back to save the main handle.

With these aformentioned flaws, I can see how the Wildcat put Fantom out of business later that year, not to mention the expiration of Dyson's dual cyclonic license.

They should've accepted Dyson's offer of letting them use their MEMA filters. They could've used them as pre motor filters to keep the motors clean and help the HEPA filters on their vacuums last longer. They probably would still be around today, being sold alongside Dyson. They probably would've kept using the Dual Cyclone technology, and they probably would've been a budget friendly option for people that want something like a Dyson but for less than what a Dyson vacuum costs.

 

[centralsweeper63]

I agree with you rlsellman21.

 

[hoover300]

Much as I am the FIRST person to crap on Shark. These were immensely powerful. Clunky, yes. But I remember filling the bin on mine into the hose and it still having power. And the floorhead is genius, eventually I removed it from the vacuum and used with extension tubes on other vacuums. The design allows it to get all the dirt in the corner where your baseboard meets floor. Which on hard floors is not something every vacuum does with ease

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.View attachment 171051

 

[centralsweeper63]

I can imagine it would be good until it stops working.

 

[huskyvacs]

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.View attachment 171051

I have this gobshite. This is the pinnacle of "yes men" vacuum design gone wrong. It is if the plastic case that your power drill comes in when its new was a vacuum cleaner. Once you try and take this apart to use it, its absolutely impossible to figure out how to get it to go back together again.

 

[kirbylux77]

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.View attachment 171051

I remember that Shark Multi Vac when it first came out in Canadian Tire, thought it was quite the strange looking vacuum! And from what I have heard and read online, these didn't perform all too good either. Blackheart, one interesting thing though is, that floor nozzle was available as a optional accessory for the Shark Navigator NV350 series! I wish I had bought one back in the day, but oh well.

 

[vac14012]

I'm pretty sure the DC15 still pulled pretty good numbers for air wattage. Of course the Ball design for DC41 and later models is much more streamlined. The Ball Animal 3 pulls 290 air watts, which is incredible lol

Ball Animal 3 would be Dyson's best ever upright with a few minor changes. Suction control for the hose/wand as its way too strong and cumbersome. Literally sucks the hose back towards the machine and you have to fight with it constantly.

And in my opinion a different Cyclone design, something similar to the DC17 would be perfect as those were their best ever imo. I've considered buying a DC17 bin and Jerry rigging the cyclones onto the Animal 3 but I'm not handy enough to do it successfully.

Otherwise in terms of raw carpet cleaning performance the animal 3 is probably their best though.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Stillwould be beaten by electrolux, kirby, older hoovers, etc.

 

[cheesewonton]

Stillwould be beaten by electrolux, kirby, older hoovers, etc.

Some Dysons can post big suction and airflow numbers ( many North American Dysons use powerful motors from Panasonic ) but their agitation is not very good nor is their durability or ease of repair. I don't think anything Dyson ever made will last as long as an old Electrolux or Kirby. I dare say I could go through and old Electrolux 1521, get is cleaned up and the motor rebuilt and everything dialed in like new and it would outlast a new Dyson bought on the same day I completed the refurb of the old Electrolux. Same for an old Royal Pony Tank.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Exactly what I mean.

 

[123go]

Some Dysons can post big suction and airflow numbers ( many North American Dysons use powerful motors from Panasonic ) but their agitation is not very good nor is their durability or ease of repair. I don't think anything Dyson ever made will last as long as an old Electrolux or Kirby. I dare say I could go through and old Electrolux 1521, get is cleaned up and the motor rebuilt and everything dialed in like new and it would outlast a new Dyson bought on the same day I completed the refurb of the old Electrolux. Same for an old Royal Pony Tank.

True some store vacs do okay for a minute.
Being old I stopped caring if things are ugly, if it gets the job done toss a bag over it...

Fwiw- Ive purchased more perfectly operational Kirbys in estate & rummage sales than I could ever count. Kirbys run forever & being dog owners with Ashma they are must have dirt eaters here man. My mom's Lux ran forever, I used it 4yrs & gifted it to our Sil when we got a Kirby.
I actually sold a lot of used estate/rummage sale Kirbys & Rainbows through a freinds dog grooming business from 1989 - 2006. She stuck a list on her dog adoption board her customers signed to get either one & it was a pretty steady side gig. My guess is people who inherit Kirbys never saw a Kirby demo & have no idea what they were gifted in the end. You know it when they don't even know how to lift one easily.

Seems there's two types of people though.
1) Those of us who fully understand products built like all my Kirbys, restaurant grade Bunn Coffee makers, Kitchen-Aid mixer, True Old Garden Tractors like my old Wheel Horse tractors. Also the old JD, I.H. Cubs & most vehicles built prior to 1980 (mostly steel bumper vehicles) will outlast more than a few owners with a tiny bit of love. We just restore/repair our items.

2)Then we have folks who buy plastic throwaway products over & over, some things annually & never consider fixing the most basic problem that occurs with a product. Just toss it, buy a new one.
They'll even buy items designed to repair with a $10 part & screwdriver yet they'll toss the whole thing out & buy some shiny junk throwaway for $400.
Omg the big corps sure love you folks! Your pay for their new cars/homes/planes etc, no doubt about it.
This "toss it & buy new" mindset has now made throwaway junk being all anyone can find today. Oh' & we're just getting started too.
Farmers just had to sue JD for making their new 1/4 million plus dollar tractors totally obsolete within a few short yrs by not making repair parts & forcing customers to rely on Deere for all fixes etc...
Google: " Right to Repair act ".
Its like being forced to buy a whole new car again instead of an Alternator.
Idk if #2 guy is still fine with that?
I just don't get it but its where we're heading.
Buy a Briggs engine you never change oil on? No drain plug because its only built to last just past an oil change.
Briggs prez stated "Todays Gen doesn't want to fool with maintenance, they'd rather buy a new product instead."
So we all pay $200 up vs $3.40 for a qt of oil. Flip it to drain/fill but its still not lasting decades like they used too.
Congress/laws finally forced Deere to supply parts longer but your lawnmowers/trimmers/saws etc got excluded in the end.
So no more parts if they choose not too make any.
My neighbors 3yr old $3600 Cub rider has sat over a yr because Cub wont make the fuel injector. Its a Cub engine not Briggs/Kohler but both Kohler & Briggs were sold to large investment corps recently. Lots of Briggs parts disappeared already.

So sorry I got so long, my point is it wont matter if its God awful ugly today because sadly' more than likely it really won't be around long anyways .

 

[centralsweeper63]

It is the story of "my old one lasted 50 years, this new one died after 4."

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

I always thought the Hoover Z were the weirdest machines ever.

@panasonicvac why is Hoover Z exactly the weirdest ever, aside from its shape?

+1 for the Hoover Z, not surprised someone beat me to it.

Just behind the Z in my book of weirdest vacuums is the Dyson DC15. The original Ball. I cannot believe this was a machine that got greenlit for production. I've been told it was still in the prototype stage when it was put out and that really explains the weirdness. Even by early Dyson standards its just such a quirky bizarre machine. Naturally I have an Animal variant and love it. The funny thing is this is actually one of the better cleaning earlier Dysons; way better than the DC07, DC14, and even its replacement the DC25. The first one to have a dual motor setup too. It actually uses the same brush roll setup as the DC21/23 Motorhead canisters

View attachment 171047View attachment 171048

No, the weirdest Dyson has got to be the DC11, because of its almost-split bin design. Apparently, that bin were meant to separate hair from other debris. The DC11 have telescopic wand and typical Dyson cyclones.

The air path on the Dyson is convoluted. So many direction changes and airflow losses.

And yet it has better cleaning performance than several of its respective contemporaries (V16 is a partial exception as @Vacuum Facts and @frickhelm both pointed out that it's crippled out of the box), because of its genuinely advanced designs that only kept getting better with each iteration, both revolutionary and evolutionary. However, the convoluted air path has to do with a lot of things - such as the aforementioned Dyson cyclones which were upgraded in a lot of eventual modern Dyson machines (such as featuring Cinetic or V16's variable cyclones). PencilVac is the first Dyson ever to directly skip the cyclones.

The air path in modern Dyson have been streamlined somewhat, with more efficient turns and faster straight tunnels. It's one of the reason they could move more air faster, with better suction (as in pressure difference - more info's in VF's lecture) and airflow. But too much airflow in volume would cut away suction (as the aforementioned lecture revealed), so while you are required to get a balance between airflow and suction, in practice suction will have to take quite a bit of priority.