I'm on the radio again

[turbo500]

Hey folks,

Some of you may remember last year I was interviewed on BBC Radio Leeds & BBC Radio Humberside regarding the new EU regulations on vacuums.

Last week, BBC Leeds got in touch to ask me to go in again following the press explosion last week regarding the new laws. You can hear me at 1hr58mins in at the link below.

It's not my finest moment, I admit. The presenter was a bit clueless and completely didn't believe me when I told her that her "super powerful Dyson" was only 1200w., but some people just won't be told. I also didn't like how she was making out like the EU officials would be coming and carting off 1600w+ vacuums away like something from the Gestapo. It was still an enjoyable experience regardless though.

On the back of this, I got a call from a press agency, so I could end up popping up elsewhere. Happy to be setting the record straight about the new legislation.

All the best,
Chris

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024pp3w

 

[spiraclean]

Good for you Chris, I'm glad someone is trying to spread the word because the press, Consumers' Association (ha!) and most manufacturers certainly aren't doing a very good job of it. Quite the opposite in fact, almost every article on this subject so far has been a complete dog's dinner.

For too long the public has been brainwashed into thinking that higher watts automatically equates to better performance, but as you've seen for yourself, this perception is very firmly ingrained into people's minds now. So much so that, even if presented with evidence to the contrary, there will be an awful lot of people who can't (or more likely, won't) accept otherwise. "Just won't be told" indeed. They will blindly believe every agenda pushed by a crappo right-wing tabloid, mind you, but you can't fix stoopid.

Personally, I find it quite exciting that some companies have managed to come up with low wattage vacuums that equal or even exceed the dust pickup of their previous cleaners. Hats off to those who took a positive stance, embraced the new regs and used them as a springboard to actually come up with something better, rather than crying to all and sundry that they're being strong-armed into complying. That has shaped my viewpoint of certain manufacturers for the better and others for the worse, and WILL influence who I give my custom to when I'm next in the market for a new cleaner.

 

[turbo500]

Thanks Spiraclean . I completely agree, it's getting ridiculous. And I'm tired of people using this as a front for their anti-EU views. Obviously, I have a political opinion, but I'm not letting that interfere with my views on this as a vacuum enthusiast. For the vacuum world, this is a good thing.

Below is a quote I gave to the press agency following the radio interview above. I only got this spot on because it was a written quote:

"I fully support the EU legislation. High power does not always equal more suction. Two of the most popular brands in the UK are Dyson and Numatic (who make Henry/Hetty) and both have used 1200w motors for years. In 1990, the most powerful upright vacuum you could buy was 800w and in 1980 it was 575w, but yet our carpets are no cleaner than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The methods have changed, but the results haven't. With the right design, it's entirely possible that a low wattage motor can generate high suction power and with the new ratings system for energy and performance, it will be easier for the customer to chose a new vacuum"

 

[suctionselector]

Your getting all over the place nowadays!

Living in Leeds I heard it in the morning, I heard Liz talking about her Dyson, and I assumed there would be a mention of the EC law, then she said 'this is Chris Parker'! Well, I was suprised, however your no stranger tho the world of radio now!

Well done you on spreading the word pubicly that this law is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[DesertTortoise]

I dunno Turbo500. In the US we had 1400 watt machines in the 1980's. They were pretty common actually. While I don't know if that was true in Europe I don't see a good reason why it wasn't. The technology was certainly in mass prodcution.

 

[matt8808]

He spreads himself aboot all over the place don't ya Chris?! You shhhhlllllaaaaaaa....

pmsl

I think you did very well though! We need more people out there spreading the word!
Personally I'm over the moon with these new rules

 

[suctionselector]

80s

DesertTortoise,

In the UK in the 1980's a popular budget machine was the Hoover Junior U1104, which had 300 watts, and still outperforms modern machines in pickup performance and reliability. Even the most up-to-date machines in the 1980's barely exceeded 600 watts, and that was sufficient to keep carpets clean.

The reason for this is the DESIGN. The brushroll's in both machines mentioned above are much better to what we get today. Also a 300 watt motor spinning a brushroll is much better at cleaning carpets that a 2000+ motor, as the faster the brush spins, the less it agitates and picks up, hence why modern machines aren't as good as cleaning deep down in carpets.

I have a 410 watt Hoover Turbopower 1 U2332 which outperform's my 800 watt Hoover Turbopower 2 U2462, which despite the Turbopower 2 having almost double the motor wattage, the brushroll spins twice as fast, so the U2332 in my opinion is better at the carpets.

I don't know about American machines but that's the situation over here in the 1980's.

 

[matt8808]

Well look at Kirby. I'm not exactly sure what the wattage on my Sentria2 is... its around 500 I think. What I do know is that it will outclean anything esle on the market. Literally lifts the carpet from the floor. Yes its a little clumbersome but it gets the job done to a very high standard. My main everyday vac is a DC25 and it doesnt deep clean on carpets half as well despite being double the motor wattage.

Motor wattage counts for nothing. Its the design that counts.

 

[suctionselector]

True

That is true, Kirby' are possibly the best lower wattage modern vacuums. Some dismiss Kirby's as many say they look old, but actually, I think they look Jolly robust and do a great job as well!

 

[DesertTortoise]

How are you quantifying the amount of cleaning different machines accomplish? What metric are you using to support your claims? Was 800 or 1000 watts achieving more sealed water lift and higher airflows on 1980's fan designs than we do on contemporary fan designs? How are you quantifying how much dirt a particular brush design or rotational speed removes from carpet? Without metrics I don't see that you have an argument.

But like I said, 1400 watt vacs were quite normal in the US in the 1980's. I have numerous examples of them. That directly contradicts one of your claims and forces me to question some of your other claims.

 

[DesertTortoise]

Suctior, my Windsor S12 sucks the carpet into the brush too. Same with my Electrolux and some of my Kenmore canister vacs. The Windsor pulls the carpeting so hard it slows the brush down tripping the brush jam sensor and shutting the vacuum off. Kirby isn't the only vacuum that has some suction and a decent rotating brush. If you speak with a tech at Windsor as I did they will tell you the vacuum should not dig down into the carpet but is designed to work best if the brushes are flicking the top of the carpet pile to loosen the dirt so the suction can pull it into the nozzle. I don't buy some of the claims people make here.

 

[suctionselector]

Well

Hang on a minute then, lets take a look at the contents of your previous post shall we?

Post# 295502 , Reply# 4 8/26/2014 at 8:26pm by DesertTortoise (high desert/Great Basin-ish) posts: 839 report offensive post to webmaster
Checkrate/Like
I dunno Turbo500. In the US we had 1400 watt machines in the 1980's. They were pretty common actually. While I don't know if that was true in Europe I don't see a good reason why it wasn't. The technology was certainly in mass prodcution.



So, there's the first post. Where in that are you mentioning anything you just said that I didn't do in my post, however, we can also see that you didn't post any either.

Why ask me to provide the information if you did not provide any yourself, as seen below?



Post# 295511 , Reply# 9 8/26/2014 at 9:30pm by DesertTortoise (high desert/Great Basin-ish) posts: 839 report offensive post to webmaster
Checkrate/Like
How are you quantifying the amount of cleaning different machines accomplish? What metric are you using to support your claims? Was 800 or 1000 watts achieving more sealed water lift and higher airflows on 1980's fan designs than we do on contemporary fan designs? How are you quantifying how much dirt a particular brush design or rotational speed removes from carpet? Without metrics I don't see that you have an argument.

But like I said, 1400 watt vacs were quite normal in the US in the 1980's. I have numerous examples of them. That directly contradicts one of your claims and forces me to question some of your other claims.



As you opposed this in the first place surely you should be the one to show the above points and mention them in your first post, if you were expecting comparisons from others?


So, now what then?


Oh, and also: 'But like I said, 1400 watt vacs were quite normal in the US in the 1980's. I have numerous examples of them. That directly contradicts one of your claims and forces me to question some of your other claims. ' I was talking about UK machines here, which are different to American machines.

 

[blakaeg]

Used a 1000 watt Sebo X1 at the weekend and it worked wonders on the carpet with its double Helix brush roll and the suction was excellent at the hose end. We don't need silly wattages to clean.

My Dyson DC24 is only 650 watt, suction isn't great at the hose but it picks up no problem on carpets and hard floors.

 

[DesertTortoise]

Nice try at dodging the question suctior. I will ask again, how are you quantifying your claims? If you don't have data that says x machine removes more dirt from carpet than y machine, or that z vacuum from 1980 has more suction or airflow than b vacuum from 2012 then you don't have an argument. All you have is opinion. Make sense?

As for what I said, I have Kenmore 4.1s and 4.5's and a 5.1 Whispertone from the 1980's that are all 12 amp motor machines. With 120 volt house current you have 1400 watts plus.

 

[beko1987]

Whoah Whoah

Surely chaps, no one is disputing that a 2200w £49/$87.17 screamer palstivac shitter is less effective than an 800w/1000w/the old ones we love machine? Especially as maybe, just maybe the needle will swing to slightly better designed machines, with an iota of thought put into r&d, filters that dont clog up in 23.54 minutes and slowly kill it?

We all know the ones, and I'm sure we all steer clear of them apart from a cheeky bin/kerb find? Average Joe will get a much better cheapo vac, and we can have nicely designed machines again?









Just about to listen, it's been on radio berks and even LBC this week!

 

[beko1987]

Traffic sounded grim this morning on the M62... M40 was lovely!

 

[suctionselector]

you

Mr Desert Tort

I use these two things I have called eyes, which help me see things.
I think I can see which is doing a better job on MY carpet.
Also, there is truth to my point, why don't you try the two vacuums in question first then try to contradict someone who has used them both and does own both. Note I never said anything about performance figures regarding the 1400 watt machines you had in the 80s. That's because I have never used one , so unless you have used and compared both vacuums together, you cant judge them.

 

[DesertTortoise]

I am paid to question wishful thinking. That's my job. Unless you can quantify your claims they are little more than heresay. Absent metrics all you can say is that something is your opinion.

 

[suctionselector]

Yes

This is opinion, but it also has an element of fact to it.

You originally stated that in the US 1400 watt vacuums were common in the 1980's, and I only made comparisons to what we had in the UK in the 1980's. I WAS just stating my opinion and which one I believe is better. Give me a week and I will be able to prove my point, it's just I am away for a while, and evidence is at home whilst I am away from it.

How are metrics measured anyway?

 

[turbo500]

I am paid to question wishful thinking. That's my job

Not on here it's not. Stick to your day job instead of being argumentative for the sake of it. I'd like to see you provide some FACTS and measurements of some the cleaners you like to slag off on the Forums, especially considering you don't own any of them.

The fact of the matter is, the UK and US markets were VERY different. We did have 1400w cleaners here in the late 80's, but those were all cylinder cleaners. My post specifically said upright.

I don't think vacuums clean any better or worse than they did 20 or 30 years ago, but the methods are quite different. Where a vacuum used to rely on things like quality brushroll's, beaters and twin fans, they now rely on cheaper parts and ridiculously high wattage motor's. There are of course exceptions to that rule with some companies using more efficient motors - Dyson, Sebo and Numatic for example, pull in plenty of suck with 1050w, 1150w, 1200w and 1300w motors depending on the model.

Jacob, you're talking a lot about dirty fan cleaners, but aside from Kirby's with their ridiculous retail price, there are no dirty fan cleaners on the market today, largely because they're inconvenient. But look back at clean air machines - the Electrolux 600 series were 575w, Panasonic 40 series were 650w and the Hoover Turbopower 2 was 800w. All had strong hose suction and excellent floor pick up. There is a reason why an 800w Hoover TP2 will pull in more suction than a modern 1800w bagless Electrolux.

 

[suctionselector]

Chris

The reason why I was talking about dirty fan cleaners was due to the fact that many cleaners in the 1980's in the US were 1400 watts apparently, and the machines I mentioned - U1104, U2332, both were popular dirty fan cleaners - were much less than 1400 watts and were sufficient still.

I'm not saying that clean fan cleaner's aren't good, in fact, I believe totally the opposite. As you mentioned with the Turbopower 2, the Panasonic 40 series etc, they were all great clean fan cleaners with great hose suction. And I agree with you on clean fan cleaners being more convenient, as they have hoses that you don't need to attach. I have a Hoover Turbopower U2332 which is a great dirty fan cleaner for carpets, but when you attatch the hose assembly the suction isn't great. As Hoover said themselves with the Turbopower 2 '19% more improved suction power'.

 

[turbo500]

Jacob, you can't compare dirty fan and clean air vacuums like that, it just doesn't work. The motors in those would not work in a clean air machine and the market was a very different place then to what it is now. I'm trying to compare like for like as best I can.

 

[suctionselector]

Chris

Sorry, I'm just using past comparisons to make as much sense out of past comparison as I can.

"As Hoover said themselves with the Turbopower 2 '19% more improved suction power'."

 

[turbo500]

The Hoover Turbopower 2 is 800w clean air, the Hoover Turbopower is between 400 and 600w dirty fan, depending on the model. The method of cleaning is completely different. And you have to bear in mind, we haven't had a dirty fan cleaner on the mainstream market for over 10 years.

 

[suctionselector]

Chris

Sorry about that, but I was originally opposed the point that in the 1980's the US had vacuum cleaners that went to 1400 watts average. I brought up the dirty fan point as most of the vacuums back then were dirty fan, with clean fan machines coming at the back end of the 1980's.

 

[turbo500]

clean fan machines coming at the back end of the 1980's.

Well, no. The Electrolux 500 series are all clean air and came out in 1971. The Hoover Convertible (Dial A Matic in the US) was also clean air and came out in the mid-60's. 1980 saw the arrival of the Panasonic Jetflo and Hitachi CV50D, which both paved the way for the Panasonic 40 series and Hitachi Powerhouse cleaners, both very popular from about 1986 onwards.

By the mid-80's, clean air machines were becoming increasingly popular as the hose suction was considerably better, especially on cleaners with on board tools. But even still, clean air uprights were only about 600w maximum until the early 90's. Cylinders have always been more powerful than uprights, obviously to compensate for the lack of brushroll, but again these were usually no more than 1000w, with 1100w and 1200w cleaners hitting the market in the mid to late 80's.

It's entirely possible that there were 1400w vacuums on the market in the US during the 1980's - I've no idea. Unlike some members here, I don't go posting information about markets I know nothing about. I suspect that any 1400w vacuums that are that old will be cylinders, which have never been overly popular in the UK.

 

[suctionselector]

Re

Regarding uprights, most modern cheap ones are bad, but how do you make a BAD cylinder? They are such an easy thing to make right but companies just churn out junk all the time! Look how basic the Henry is, the design is so simple and has been around for decades, but why do some other manufacturers make such rubbish cylinders?

I've never really felt like a cylinder outperforms a decent upright on carpet deep cleaning, par the exception of power heads, but they are very uncommon over here and I think its only Numatic & Miele who do them in the UK.

Even though cyclinder's don't have brushroll's, there's no excuse for 2000 watt + motors to be in them. I have a Miele S2111 and I rarely use above 900 watts as I find that more than sufficient.

I find cylinders that don't compact down or have parking slots really difficult to
store, I have to keep my Vax 121 in the garage out of the way, whereas an upright can just sit in the corner of a room and not take up as much space.

I don't own one - and probably never will - but here's the Dyson DC11, which, I think stores quite cleverly. That's about the only good thing about it really.

 

[turbo500]

Miele and Numatic don't sell powerhead cleaners in the UK anymore. The only company currently selling a PN cylinder is Sebo.

Bad cylinders are easy to make. Just look at the Goblin Rio, for example. Nice, basic cleaner with good suction, but they're useless on carpet because of the crappy floortool. And now, of course, we have direct filter single cyclones that clog up within a very short period of time and lose suction. That design combined with a crap floortool and cheap, leaky hose makes for a very crap cylinder.

Why do other manufactuers make rubbish? Simple. IT's CHEAP and QUICK.

I agree with what you're saying about cylinders being difficult to store, but in the same post as signing the praises of a Henry, you're stating that the Vax is difficult to store, whereas I've found this applies to any kind of tub vac really.

 

[suctionselector]

Rio

By Goblin Rio are you referring to the blue and grey one or the red and beige model? I once had a beige and red 800 model which was great for a budget cleaner.

I do find Henry's unwieldy to store, as with most tub style vacuums, and most cylinders for that matter.