Shark Rotator vs Kirby Gsix What went wrong?

[mike811]

So I compared these two vacuums picking up saw dust. Shark was slightly better. I know this is not very accurate test, but anyway I am VERY confused.
Kirby has new belt, brushroll, hepa bag, airflow meter shows full 10. Was the head set to too high?
Any idea what went wrong?

 

[sebo4me]

That is confusing

Did you adjust the floorhead on the Kirby till you heard a change in the motor pitch then down one more notch?

Is the brushroll adjusted properly for wear?

 

[kirbysthebest]

Another possibility

Since the Kirby is a direct air machine, the large amount of saw dust is being pulled past the belt in a very short amount of time.  The saw dust may temporarily slow or stop the brush roll causing a reduction in results.


 


In contrast the Shark is a clean air machine where the belt is out of the air stream. 

 

[sebo4me]

Didn't think of that

 

[mike811]

I might have lower the head one step down and maybe I went too fast. Is it possible that large amount of sawdust going through the fan slowed the airflow?

 

[sebo4me]

Could be what Harley said all the sawdust at once jamming the belt. With a 2 inch intake hole I'd be surprised if it was blocked. The shark would be more likely to get blocked I'd think. But there's people on hear that know a lot more than I do

 

[kirbysthebest]

I just thought of the belt, because I had it happen last night.  I sucked up a cotton ball with Odorific in the Heritage II and the cotton ball wrapped around the motor shaft and stopped the belt. 


 


Have also see this happen when someone uses carpet powder,  it will cause the belt to slow or stop when it coats the belt and shaft as it  follows the air path.

 

[sebo4me]

Oh here*

 

[sebo4me]

What I will say is for a cleaner with supposedly low airflow the Shark does a very good job as I've found with my powered lift away.

 

[mike811]

Shark vs Kirby

I agree that Shark cleans well.One thing why might be the well designed nozzle/brushroll. One exception is my brown low pile carpet.
Some time ago I posted video to the VL (Shark vs Kirby) where the Kirby absolutely destroyed the Shark on that brown carpet. Only thing what beats it is the Wessel Werk EBK340 powerhead with the high airflow/suction canister like Lux or Nilfisk.
But back to the main subject. I think that I would have heard the brushroll slowing down in the Kirby. Genuine belt has grooves in it and it takes a lot to slow it down. I also saw visual agitation in front of the Kirby which is impressive on the shag. But of course it is possible that brushroll slowed down.

 

[sebo4me]

Can it possibly be that the Shark gives the Kirby a run for the money?

Is the difference in cleaning ability between a direct air motor and a clean air motor exaggerated?

 

[wyaple]

Mikko,

Based on what I saw in your video, your G6 was slightly better per stroke. The Shark did a poor job at the edges of the nozzle.

That being said, sawdust is a very easy test and most vacuums have an easy time picking it up, especially since it is more or less "on top of" the carpet rather than buried deep into the pile.

I just tried a test of flour and oatmeal flakes sitting on my medium pile test carpet. Using my G6 with the newer oblique #152502 (not the older chevron) brush roll, I did not make the infamous Kirby "seal". I was 1 notch above that position. And guess what? The G6 sucked up the flour and oatmeal completely in just one full pass. I could have gotten the same results with the brush roll turned completely off.

The short answer is there is no way a 75 CFM Shark deep cleans as well as a 120 CFM G6. You may want to try a "flour/sawdust under the carpet" test using a carpet that doesn't have a rubber backing and video those results.

Bill

 

[ralph123]

You might want to tape off the rug to make a more narrow test strip to better control the area being tested. I may be wrong, but the path you vacuumed with the Kirby seemed to be more narrow than the path you cleaned when you followed up with the Shark. The Kirby never had the opportunity to clean up some of that sawdust.

Nice job on the video.

 

[mike811]

I want to revisit this test at some point.
I went faster with the Kirby, head wasn't lowered enough, large amount of sawdust slowed the brushroll slightly. Those might be the key factors to the result.
Picture of the carpet what allows full airflow trough it.
Kirby win, Shark fail.

 

[sebo4me]

So I decided to do my own test comparing my Sentria 2 with the Shark Powered lift away.

I put some powder under my carpet.
First to go was the Sentria 2.

I did a few passes then looked under the carpet. The Sentria picked up the vast majority.

Then repeated the same test with the Shark.
Powder under the carpet, a few passes then looked under the carpet.
The Shark had picked up Sweet Fanny Adams!

This proves to me that the Kirby with the direct air motor produces more airflow and deeper cleans carpets.

 

[mike811]

Very nice!
Another proof that airflow is needed. Actually it's a common sense, that pulling large amount of air cleans well.
Airflow + agitation. Can't beat that

 

[sebo4me]

You can't

 

[sptyks]

Mike,


 


I watched the beginning of the video three times. How many clicks did you lower the Kirby nozzle? It looks and sounds like you only lowered the Kirby's head only 2 clicks which would not normally be low enough to form a seal on that type of carpet.


 


 

 

[wyaple]

Mikko,

Never be afraid to experiment with the height adjustment. Different dirt and carpet types may require 1 click higher or lower than standard.

BUT, what's so cool about manual height adjustment is that the user has a choice. Many vacuums today merely float over the carpet at whatever height seems best, which may or may not be optimal.

Bill