It is not rubbish
50 years ago, 500 watts or so was considered powerful for a cylinder. As time progressed, wattage increased further, and whilst I always preferred Electrolux cylinder cleaners to Hoover, the latter did always have that little bit more suction power. Then in the 1970's Electrolux completely redesigned their motors, resulting in much more power, with a typical wattage being between only 650 and 750 watts.
But it wasn't just the motor. Cleaners were designed to maximize airflow, and in many cases the dirt was flung to the out edges of the dustbag so as to make good use of the natural cyclone effect, which is why so many cloth bags were round in shape.
And then we move to uprights. Sold principally as carpet-sweeping machines, the tools were only ever an add-on for light cleaning tasks. The low wattage motors -clean and dirty air- created plenty of suction to carry debris the minute distance from floor to bag. The addition of built-on tools resulted in motor wattages needing to be stepped up as there was not the room to make a physically bigger motor.
But then somewhere in the last 20 years it all went pitifully wrong. Someone must have decided that numbers sell and that it was cheaper to build a high wattage motor than it was to bother to make a cleaner which worked better. Thus, the wattages have gone up and up and up, and all this in a time when the push has been to drastically lower energy consumption across the country.
These high-wattage motors are not always producing useful suction power either. Think of it like this; if your beside light has a standard 60 watt bulb, you will get more light from it if the lampshade is white rather than black. The power used is the same, but what you get out of it is entirely restricted by the design. Add then to this, if you please, that no manufacturer has said as of yet exactly how many air-watts is needed for each type of cleaning task.
Turbo500 has nailed it in the last line of his reply.
