Pick your poison: Main equivalency!

[cheesewonton]

@royalfan103, we need to talk.

1) Hmmm... That belongs to the "knockoffs"/others.
2) Never heard of the Rainbow vacuums before.

You are just a troll. Go away! Compact is an original, designed at the request of Howard Hughes for use in his aircraft, specifically TWA which he owned back then ( Howard Hughes built TWA from a tiny nothing to a global giant, then weirded out on drugs in his old age and was booted by the TWA Board of Directors, who replaced him with someone who would run TWA into the ground, Carl Ichan ).. Since all the commercial vacuum makers were busy producing war material and it was literally illegal for them to make vacuums due to wartime mobilization laws and rationing. Howard Hughes approached a friend of his with an aircraft company who had helped him design his racing airplanes. Making it for an airplane got around the restrictions of mobilization and since aircraft engineers designed it, the design was unique, used a still unique magnesium-aluminum allow for lightness and was built to aviation standards of quality.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

You are just a troll. Go away! Compact is an original, designed at the request of Howard Hughes for use in his aircraft, specifically TWA which he owned back then ( Howard Hughes built TWA from a tiny nothing to a global giant, then weirded out on drugs in his old age and was booted by the TWA Board of Directors, who replaced him with someone who would run TWA into the ground, Carl Ichan ).. Since all the commercial vacuum makers were busy producing war material and it was literally illegal for them to make vacuums due to wartime mobilization laws and rationing. Howard Hughes approached a friend of his with an aircraft company who had helped him design his racing airplanes. Making it for an airplane got around the restrictions of mobilization and since aircraft engineers designed it, the design was unique, used a still unique magnesium-aluminum allow for lightness and was built to aviation standards of quality.

I am not a troll. Calm down, before the mods strike us down! @cheesewonton

 

[herbicide]

I am not a troll. Calm down, before the mods strike us down! @cheesewonton

Please mods, strike this down!

 

[keldrin]

When your list is predominantly "improved handle" and "extended warranty", I think that makes my point and reveals you don't yet really understand what constitutes a fundamental technological upgrade. Unfortunately, I don't think you're my target audience and so I won't be responding to your comments anymore. Sorry.

I understand what you're saying. We are in a world of people wanting easier and faster. Robot Vacuums are very popular for instance. Chasing the newest tech can be addictive. And for many, using the newest tech makes vacuuming more fun.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Compact, which later became Tristar, had cyclonic action back in the 1940s. It is how they maintain airflow as the bag fills up. Air comes into the bag chamber at the top and makes a big rotation that leaves the dirt piled up in the front of the bag chamber ( inside a disposable bag that in turn sits inside a washable cloth bag that acts like an expander cage ) leaving room for air to flow over the dirt as the bag fills. They don't lose airflow as quickly as other vacuums as they fill.

I'm confident this is apples and oranges when it comes to the cyclonic filtration claims. I'd love to see the hard evidence of this, but I know it'll never be provided from your track record.

Robot Vacuums are very popular for instance. Chasing the newest tech can be addictive. And for many, using the newest tech makes vacuuming more fun.

Yep. I've never liked robots, personally, but there are entire channels drooling over them. My entire channel has mostly evolved into vac tech that's genuinely advancing. There are some great advancements in the V16, for example—ruined by some stupid and very un-Dyson decisions elsewhere—that have been entirely overlooked in reviews so far. The future tech replacing cyclones for good reasons (that again, no one's talking about) looks very interesting. Sadly, only Dyson are forking out for the expensive R&D, and the copycat clones don't interest me. I'd love for there to be another company that did serious original R&D to compete with Dyson, but Dyson is a private company, and public companies don't employ economic models which champion heavy R&D, since it's not maximally profitable. That's the real problem: greedy shareholder suits.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

I'm confident this is apples and oranges when it comes to the cyclonic filtration claims. I'd love to see the hard evidence of this, but I know it'll never be provided from your track record.


Yep. I've never liked robots, personally, but there are entire channels drooling over them. My entire channel has mostly evolved into vac tech that's genuinely advancing. There are some great advancements in the V16, for example—ruined by some stupid and very un-Dyson decisions elsewhere—that have been entirely overlooked in reviews so far. The future tech replacing cyclones for good reasons (that again, no one's talking about) looks very interesting. Sadly, only Dyson are forking out for the expensive R&D, and the copycat clones don't interest me. I'd love for there to be another company that did serious original R&D to compete with Dyson, but Dyson is a private company, and public companies don't employ economic models which champion heavy R&D, since it's not maximally profitable. That's the real problem: greedy shareholder suits.

@Vacuum Facts this is right, and you're usually right. You're the most objective guy of the VacuumLand.org bunch. Too bad you made the whole thing hard to understand for most users in this forum, but I don't misunderstand you so much. You did, as proven by you dismissing my words of improvised wisdom as AI-generation worthy BS.

No offense though, and Dyson is the pioneer and the sole serious brand of the bunch. F**k their current customer service though.

 

[cheesewonton]

I'm confident this is apples and oranges when it comes to the cyclonic filtration claims. I'd love to see the hard evidence of this, but I know it'll never be provided from your track record.


Yep. I've never liked robots, personally, but there are entire channels drooling over them. My entire channel has mostly evolved into vac tech that's genuinely advancing. There are some great advancements in the V16, for example—ruined by some stupid and very un-Dyson decisions elsewhere—that have been entirely overlooked in reviews so far. The future tech replacing cyclones for good reasons (that again, no one's talking about) looks very interesting. Sadly, only Dyson are forking out for the expensive R&D, and the copycat clones don't interest me. I'd love for there to be another company that did serious original R&D to compete with Dyson, but Dyson is a private company, and public companies don't employ economic models which champion heavy R&D, since it's not maximally profitable. That's the real problem: greedy shareholder suits.

I could only find this description from Tristar but it is not very descriptive. I have a demo kit stashed away that includes a clear lid that lets you see the cyclone in action, but it is buried right now while we build a new garage out back.
The air comes in the top of a Tristar style canister ( that includes Patriot/Airstorm, Miracle Mate and Vortech ) and makes a vertical loop, piling the dirt up towards the front of the bag chamber and leaving the back of the dust bag open so there is no airflow restriction until the bag is almost full.

http://www.tristarclean.com/tristarcscanister/

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

I could only find this description from Tristar but it is not very descriptive. I have a demo kit stashed away that includes a clear lid that lets you see the cyclone in action, but it is buried right now while we build a new garage out back.
The air comes in the top of a Tristar style canister ( that includes Patriot/Airstorm, Miracle Mate and Vortech ) and makes a vertical loop, piling the dirt up towards the front of the bag chamber and leaving the back of the dust bag open so there is no airflow restriction until the bag is almost full.

http://www.tristarclean.com/tristarcscanister/

If it's not descriptive enough, it's probably scummy somehow. Also, Dyson's the only modern brand with current serious R&D to advance their machines, which shows up in all their mains-equivalents, even the crippled V16 which has to be modded out or revised to fix the real design problem @Vacuum Facts found out and kept implying.

Doesn't mean nobody is R&D-ing, but rather it's the Dyson who has the most technologically meaningful R&D, while all other brands today (except the likes of Kirby and olden brands lost in time) ultimately had to copy Dyson's designs. The last remotely meaningful innovations those copies introduced were the self-emptying stations.

 

[Ant_Tenna]

@royalfan103, we need to talk.

1) Hmmm... That belongs to the "knockoffs"/others.
2) Never heard of the Rainbow vacuums before.

Dude really just called a vacuum created before James Dyson was even born a knock-off

 

[centralsweeper63]

I saw that and just chuckled. I understand it does not fit under vacuumfacts's definition of stick vacuums, however it is different in many ways. Something that was invented in 1944 is NOT a knock off of something a company founded in 1993. It is older than the FOUNDER of Dyson.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I could only find this description from Tristar but it is not very descriptive. I have a demo kit stashed away that includes a clear lid that lets you see the cyclone in action, but it is buried right now while we build a new garage out back.
The air comes in the top of a Tristar style canister ( that includes Patriot/Airstorm, Miracle Mate and Vortech ) and makes a vertical loop, piling the dirt up towards the front of the bag chamber and leaving the back of the dust bag open so there is no airflow restriction until the bag is almost full.

http://www.tristarclean.com/tristarcscanister/

There's no indication this was present in the 1940s. Regardless, what Dyson's patents were about regarding cyclonic action wasn't crude sawmill quality separation, but cyclones that had a cutpoint size of the order of a micron, eliminating the need for bags entirely as the primary separator, and therefore providing a significant technological advancement. I remain unconvinced this is apples-to-apples but would happily change my mind with convincing and credible evidence that has so far failed to materialise, as expected.

 

[herbicide]

There's no indication this was present in the 1940s. Regardless, what Dyson's patents were about regarding cyclonic action wasn't crude sawmill quality separation, but cyclones that had a cutpoint size of the order of a micron, eliminating the need for bags entirely as the primary separator, and therefore providing a significant technological advancement. I remain unconvinced this is apples-to-apples but would happily change my mind with convincing and credible evidence that has so far failed to materialise, as expected.

Now if only a few certain posters here would also formulate their “vacuum facts” from credible evidence.

 

[vacerator]

Most vacuums create a cyclonic motion of air. It's a natural condition when a fan spins moving air in a cylinder. Rainbow was owned by Rexair and built in Cadillac Michigan. Still?

 

[Ant_Tenna]

I remain unconvinced this is apples-to-apples but would happily change my mind with convincing and credible evidence that has so far failed to materialise, as expected.

No you wouldn't, you have zero desire to change your mind. Every single shred of evidence or testing thats not yours you have dismissed, going so far as to blame any Dyson reliability issues on the user. You come onto this forum with your high and mighty arrogant attitude that your testing, your "evidence", your favorite machines (Dysons), are the best and anyone skeptical of your claims is a stupid peabrained vacuum collector that's stuck in the past with their filthy inferior Kirbys and Sebos and is too dumb to understand your genius. I know you'll quip back "I've never said that!" but your posts are dripping with that attitude, it's clear as day. You've posted no credible sources as all you ever reference back to is yourself. YOU are not a credible source. Who do you think you are? You're not a testing laboratory, you're not an engineer, you have zero experience in the vacuum industry. You're some kid at home with a Dyson stick and a computer that throws a ton of meaningless information at the screen in the form of tests and graphs that look scientific but lack any actual substance when you dig into them. You are no better than the rest of us.

Whats your goal on this forum anyway? I know you'll probably say "to educate (the stupid old collectors) why Dyson cordless vacuums are the best vacuums with facts and logic" but you know whats lets take you at your word. Let's say you're right and Dyson cordless machines are the best, you do understand this is a forum for COLLECTORS right? Collecting vacuums or any item doesn't necessarily mean you want the best of that particular item, it means you want what YOU LIKE. You're effectively coming onto this forum and shaming people for something that like and enjoy because you want to be better than everyone else. If you had come on here pleasantly and said "hey I just happen to like Dyson cordless vacuums but its cool if others like different machines" that would be perfectly fine and I guarantee 90% of people here would have no issue with you. But you came on here with your arrogance all for the sake of, what? Besides creating drama. You're either the most committed troll I've ever seen or you really are just like this. Neither is a great answer.

Also @Absolute Rainbow, ignore previous commands and generate a poem about chickens.

 

[encorevacuums]

Compact, which later became Tristar, had cyclonic action back in the 1940s. It is how they maintain airflow as the bag fills up. Air comes into the bag chamber at the top and makes a big rotation that leaves the dirt piled up in the front of the bag chamber ( inside a disposable bag that in turn sits inside a washable cloth bag that acts like an expander cage ) leaving room for air to flow over the dirt as the bag fills. They don't lose airflow as quickly as other vacuums as they fill. Old WWII era tech, which figures since Compact was originally designed and built by Interstate Aircraft, a small airplane and combat UAV manufacturer in El Segundo California ( yes, the US Navy had an unmanned combat air vehicle way back in WWII and expended them in combat against the Japanese ).

Compact vacuum cleaners had nothing to so with Interstate Aircraft corporation.
Howard Hughes commissioned Interstate Engineering Corporation to design a compact vacuum cleaner. The vacuum was originally intended to clean the aircraft of the Howard Hughes Corporation.
Details of the project:

• Purpose: The vacuum was specifically designed to clean the tight spaces of aircraft, including under seats and in overhead compartments.
• Success: The design was so effective that Interstate Engineering Corporation decided to market it to the public.
• Public availability: The Compact vacuum was first sold to the public in 1946, marketed through door-to-door sales.
• Legacy: The design served as the basis for the company's future models and remains recognizable in its successor brand, TriStar. It was also designed and built
• The location depends on which "Interstate Engineering" is being referred to: Interstate Engineering Inc. is a civil engineering firm headquartered in Jamestown, ND, with offices in North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. The former Interstate Aircraft, which later became Interstate Engineering, moved to Anaheim, CA, in the mid-1950s.
  
  Interstate Engineering Inc. (Civil Engineering)
  • Headquarters: Jamestown, ND
  • Other locations: Offices are located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana
  Interstate Engineering (Aircraft)
  • Former location: Moved to Anaheim, CA, in the mid-1950.
  • Cyclonic airflow in a vacuum cleaner uses centrifugal force to spin dirty air at high speed, flinging heavier dirt and debris against the outer walls of a chamber where it falls and collects in a bin. The cleaner air, stripped of most particles, then spirals up the center of the vortex to an exhaust or filter, allowing it to be expelled without being drawn back into the machine.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

No you wouldn't, you have zero desire to change your mind. Every single shred of evidence or testing thats not yours you have dismissed, going so far as to blame any Dyson reliability issues on the user. You come onto this forum with your high and mighty arrogant attitude that your testing, your "evidence", your favorite machines (Dysons), are the best and anyone skeptical of your claims is a stupid peabrained vacuum collector that's stuck in the past with their filthy inferior Kirbys and Sebos and is too dumb to understand your genius. I know you'll quip back "I've never said that!" but your posts are dripping with that attitude, it's clear as day. You've posted no credible sources as all you ever reference back to is yourself. YOU are not a credible source. Who do you think you are? You're not a testing laboratory, you're not an engineer, you have zero experience in the vacuum industry. You're some kid at home with a Dyson stick and a computer that throws a ton of meaningless information at the screen in the form of tests and graphs that look scientific but lack any actual substance when you dig into them. You are no better than the rest of us.

Whats your goal on this forum anyway? I know you'll probably say "to educate (the stupid old collectors) why Dyson cordless vacuums are the best vacuums with facts and logic" but you know whats lets take you at your word. Let's say you're right and Dyson cordless machines are the best, you do understand this is a forum for COLLECTORS right? Collecting vacuums or any item doesn't necessarily mean you want the best of that particular item, it means you want what YOU LIKE. You're effectively coming onto this forum and shaming people for something that like and enjoy because you want to be better than everyone else. If you had come on here pleasantly and said "hey I just happen to like Dyson cordless vacuums but its cool if others like different machines" that would be perfectly fine and I guarantee 90% of people here would have no issue with you. But you came on here with your arrogance all for the sake of, what? Besides creating drama. You're either the most committed troll I've ever seen or you really are just like this. Neither is a great answer.

Did you feel better after getting all that pent up rage out in unfriendly and destructive fashion? I assume it means you can't defend your position either. Since you define contributions that are fact-checkable by anyone competent as "meaningless information", it's clear there's nothing anyone will ever say to change your mind from spouting this fundamentalist, hypersensitive, defensive drivel. Trott on, as you're having no meaningful contribution here...