Kirby motors

[kirby519]

Any body have any insight or thoughts as to why Kirby hasn't adopted a "pancake" style motor for their machines? I know they were designed to lower the over all height of the machines to get under low furniture. I'm aware it doesn't have anything to do with the suction power or air flow that can be produced. Or is a matter of it wouldn't have enough torque to operate the drive tech and accommodate the long life flat belts on the floor nozzle and renovator and polisher verses the round style belts on Hoovers and Eureka's

I know on a Hoover or Eureka vacuum you can jam the agitator and burn the belt off but never stop the motor in the process.

A pancake style motor could help in reducing the over all weight of the machine. as the armature and field coil are about half the size of those in the Kirby. And could reduce the overall size of the machine giving it a more slim and trim appearance and not appear to look as heavy in weight.

A pancake style motor could still be mounted in the vertical position. On the other machines the over all size of the motor assembly is that the motor is directly attached to the bearing plate which is also the back side of the fan chamber.

Any thoughts or knowledge why that isn't or wouldn't be feasible?

 

[sptyks]

Here's why Kirby would never do this:


 


I think that the Kirby Power Plant and floor nozzle would have to be completely redesigned to accommodate a Pancake style motor. This could cost hundreds of thousands in time and productivity to also adapt a shampoo system and other attachments.


 


I don't think a pancake motor has enough power/torque to drive the brush roll and the Tech Drive at the same time.


 


A complete redesign of the system would be necessary to do this and to accomplish what, save a few ounces in weight or lower the machine an inch or two? The resulting design would still be too tall to fit under a bed or other furniture. 


 


Kirby has built other prototypes over the years but have stuck with the basic G series design for the last 25 years because it works so well. They have not found any other design that performs better than the current G series design which would be the Avalir.


 


 

 

[Vacuummania]

As stated above....

Kirby's design is very straightforward and simple... The overall design has been very minimally altered through the years because it does what Kirby wants it to.

The Avalir looks almost identical to a G3 except for minor things. The overall design hasn't changed much over a long, long time! A huge departure from this design would need significant reasons to justify it. And, if customers are OK with the "traditional" design, Kirby has no reason to alter it - it wouldn't make sense financially or logistically.

Please don't get the feeling that new ideas aren't worth considering. However, there's little reason (at this point) to change a great-performing design (like the Kirby).

 

[kirby519]

Please believe me I don't want a totally redesigned machine. A Kirby Is a Kirby.

My train of thought is why couldn't or wouldn't they use a field and armature of that size in the machine. I just used the pancake motor as an example of the size of the workings. smaller field and armature. As stated above the only real reason I could think of was possibly not enough torque to make it function efficiently.

They wouldn't really have to do a complete redesign of the machine to accommodate a motor of that size. All you are taking from that style motor is the guts of it and scraping the rest of it. IE the motor body.

I very much like the look of the pre G series. I would like to see todays performance and some features in a Dual sanitronic package. That machine was a very good seller. The Classic model was also a very good seller at least in this area.

The new Avilir has had a slow start in this area.

 

[tolivac]

Another reason against the "pancake" motor and fan system-the airpath is too constricted.And not only not having enough torque for the brushroll and Tech Drive-the attachments like the carpet-floor shampooer and fluffer-polisher.The pancake design would make it impossible to change the attachments since the pancake motor floor head is fixed.also use of the hose--pancake machines perform POORLY with a hose and adaptor.

 

[kirby519]

@tolivac

So the over size of the armature and field would be "undersized" as I thought might be the case as mentioned in the op.

I can see where I should have added a few additional words indicate that I was thinking about using only the field and armature of that style motor and not the whole motor assembly of that design.

 

[kirby519]

@tolivac

I agree with you on the other points of using a machine set up with a pancake motor. Machines with that set up only accomplish one of my goals not all of them.

 

[sptyks]

@kirby519

The small size of the pancake field and armature would not produce the torque needed to drive the fan, brush roll and Tech Drive on the back end. I have never heard of a pancake motor that had a drive shaft on the back end. IMHO There are just too many issues to overcome with this type of setup.

 

[kirby519]

That was the about the only reason I could think of is not enough torque produced to operate the Kirby. But don't have all the tech specs and thought I would put that out there to the group. thanks for the info.

 

[3rdgenvacguy]

pancake with powerdrive

The Eureka 5071E used the pancake motor that had a nylon gear running under the armature, that in turn ran a cogged belt to their self propell system. Agreed with those above, that the Kirby system, with the rug renovator, etc. does not lend itself to the pancake design.