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?