What is the Weirdest Vacuums You've Seen?

[vac14012]

My pick is the Samsung Motion Sync from 2015. It was essentially a response to the Dyson Ball Uprights with a weird gimmick.

It had two dustbins and two motors. One for the main vacuum and another for an integrated handheld vacuum.

A fun idea for commercials or something but it was terrible in practice. It was essentially the same thing as using a hose but worse. It had its own weaker motor so the suction was poor, and another bin you'd have to empty. And it was corded so there wasn't even an argument of being able to take it to another room, like those old uprights with a dustbuster in the middle.

Otherwise though the vacuum was fine I think, if it had a hose would have been unremarkable.

 

[cheesewonton]

The Kenmore Ultravac, a rare tandem air canister and power nozzle lash up from Kenmore only sold for about six months and not everywhere in the US. The canister was a normal enough 4.5 hp Whispertone but the Powermate II was unique. Not only did it have a direct air suction motor that drove the brush roll similar to how Orecks are set up, but the power nozzle had a dust bin and detachable power cord. The Powermate II could be detached from the hose and used as a stand alone lightweight upright for quick clean ups. Emptying the bin was as simple as attaching the hose from the canister and sucking the dirt out. I have one. The Powermate II was a great idea but the implementation is not so nice, fragile and kind of wobbly because they wanted the handle to be able to rotate 90 degrees when the hose was attached like their normal wands to allow the thing to get under furniture. I don't have images of mine yet but here's a video of someone else's.

 

[panasonicvac]

I always thought the Hoover Z were the weirdest machines ever.

 

[vacerator]

Voorwerk to me.

 

[Ant_Tenna]

+1 for the Hoover Z, not surprised someone beat me to it.

Just behind the Z in my book of weirdest vacuums is the Dyson DC15. The original Ball. I cannot believe this was a machine that got greenlit for production. I've been told it was still in the prototype stage when it was put out and that really explains the weirdness. Even by early Dyson standards its just such a quirky bizarre machine. Naturally I have an Animal variant and love it. The funny thing is this is actually one of the better cleaning earlier Dysons; way better than the DC07, DC14, and even its replacement the DC25. The first one to have a dual motor setup too. It actually uses the same brush roll setup as the DC21/23 Motorhead canisters

 

[vacerator]

Costco had these on sale a while back. Our neighbor grabbed two. One for the main floor, one for their basement which has berber carpeting. They love them.

 

[centralsweeper63]

The Kenmore you linked looks very cool. I too have a dc15 and love it. I really want a c23 to try.

 

[rlsellman21]

+1 for the Hoover Z, not surprised someone beat me to it.

Just behind the Z in my book of weirdest vacuums is the Dyson DC15. The original Ball. I cannot believe this was a machine that got greenlit for production. I've been told it was still in the prototype stage when it was put out and that really explains the weirdness. Even by early Dyson standards its just such a quirky bizarre machine. Naturally I have an Animal variant and love it. The funny thing is this is actually one of the better cleaning earlier Dysons; way better than the DC07, DC14, and even its replacement the DC25. The first one to have a dual motor setup too. It actually uses the same brush roll setup as the DC21/23 Motorhead canisters

View attachment 171047View attachment 171048

I would love to get a DC15. It would be nice to compare it to my UP30.

 

[rlsellman21]

My pick is the Samsung Motion Sync from 2015. It was essentially a response to the Dyson Ball Uprights with a weird gimmick.

It had two dustbins and two motors. One for the main vacuum and another for an integrated handheld vacuum.

A fun idea for commercials or something but it was terrible in practice. It was essentially the same thing as using a hose but worse. It had its own weaker motor so the suction was poor, and another bin you'd have to empty. And it was corded so there wasn't even an argument of being able to take it to another room, like those old uprights with a dustbuster in the middle.

Otherwise though the vacuum was fine I think, if it had a hose would have been unremarkable.

They actually did have a model that used a hose. It was pretty much a DC41 knockoff. I'm amazed that Dyson didn't sue them for patent infringement.

 

[cheesewonton]

+1 for the Hoover Z, not surprised someone beat me to it.

Just behind the Z in my book of weirdest vacuums is the Dyson DC15. The original Ball. I cannot believe this was a machine that got greenlit for production. I've been told it was still in the prototype stage when it was put out and that really explains the weirdness. Even by early Dyson standards its just such a quirky bizarre machine. Naturally I have an Animal variant and love it. The funny thing is this is actually one of the better cleaning earlier Dysons; way better than the DC07, DC14, and even its replacement the DC25. The first one to have a dual motor setup too. It actually uses the same brush roll setup as the DC21/23 Motorhead canisters

View attachment 171047View attachment 171048

The air path on the Dyson is convoluted. So many direction changes and airflow losses.

 

[rlsellman21]

The air path on the Dyson is convoluted. So many direction changes and airflow losses.

I'm pretty sure the DC15 still pulled pretty good numbers for air wattage. Of course the Ball design for DC41 and later models is much more streamlined. The Ball Animal 3 pulls 290 air watts, which is incredible lol

 

[blackheart]

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.

 

[kirbyclassiciii]

Does anybody think Kirby's COMVAC line of commercial-use vacuums, in particular the CV1300 and CV1600, looked a bit weird?

Both stood out for different reasons:
1. The CV1300 was manufactured using leftover parts from the 500/Sanitronic line, also shared with the American Lincoln Super-Sweep and SuperVac 180.


2. The more contemporary-looking CV1600 had a unique top cord hook for its extra-long 60-foot cord, and it had the power switch built into it. It also had a dual-purpose bag system (both shake out and disposable bags).


~Ben

 

[rlsellman21]

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.View attachment 171051

Same crappy cyclone design lol

 

[desiredname]

How about the Dirt Devil Platinum Force? The massive filter and simple air path gives it good performance for a bagless

 

[niclonnic]

My pick would be the Fantom Wildcat. It was released in 2001 and was pathetic in every possible way! However, I've never owned one myself, so I had to rely on research for this info.

For a Fantom, the Wildcat had a very bizarre and quirky design. Its handle was offset, and the vacuum had what the company called "direct power engineering." Essentially, this design placed the main, suction motor up high, just below the Fantom logo. It minimized twists and turns in the air path, allegedly to improve performance. But despite claiming to have a 95 PPR (power performance ratio), this ended up being a BIG LIE.

The brushroll, driven by a separate motor, had soft bristles and a very narrow diameter. This meant that the Wildcat greatly struggled with deep cleaning; it only got surface dirt at best. Also, the build quality was cheap. The biggest weak point of the Wildcat was the handle; it was held on by a thin plastic bracket that just snapped onto the vacuum. This made the handle extremely fragile; heavy usage could cause it to snap off. Luckily, there is a carrying handle on the back to save the main handle.

With these aformentioned flaws, I can see how the Wildcat put Fantom out of business later that year, not to mention the expiration of Dyson's dual cyclonic license.

 

[rlsellman21]

How about the Dirt Devil Platinum Force? The massive filter and simple air path gives it good performance for a bagless

Those Fantoms behind it would outperform it in terms of maintaining suction power. The filter in the Platinum Force upright will get clogged with dust, and cleaning it would be as messy as emptying a Shop Vac.

 

[rlsellman21]

My pick would be the Fantom Wildcat. It was released in 2001 and was pathetic in every possible way! However, I've never owned one myself, so I had to rely on research for this info.

For a Fantom, the Wildcat had a very bizarre and quirky design. Its handle was offset, and the vacuum had what the company called "direct power engineering." Essentially, this design placed the main, suction motor up high, just below the Fantom logo. It minimized twists and turns in the air path, allegedly to improve performance. But despite claiming to have a 95 PPR (power performance ratio), this ended up being a BIG LIE.

The brushroll, driven by a separate motor, had soft bristles and a very narrow diameter. This meant that the Wildcat greatly struggled with deep cleaning; it only got surface dirt at best. Also, the build quality was cheap. The biggest weak point of the Wildcat was the handle; it was held on by a thin plastic bracket that just snapped onto the vacuum. This made the handle extremely fragile; heavy usage could cause it to snap off. Luckily, there is a carrying handle on the back to save the main handle.

With these aformentioned flaws, I can see how the Wildcat put Fantom out of business later that year, not to mention the expiration of Dyson's dual cyclonic license.

They should've accepted Dyson's offer of letting them use their MEMA filters. They could've used them as pre motor filters to keep the motors clean and help the HEPA filters on their vacuums last longer. They probably would still be around today, being sold alongside Dyson. They probably would've kept using the Dual Cyclone technology, and they probably would've been a budget friendly option for people that want something like a Dyson but for less than what a Dyson vacuum costs.

 

[centralsweeper63]

I agree with you rlsellman21.

 

[hoover300]

Much as I am the FIRST person to crap on Shark. These were immensely powerful. Clunky, yes. But I remember filling the bin on mine into the hose and it still having power. And the floorhead is genius, eventually I removed it from the vacuum and used with extension tubes on other vacuums. The design allows it to get all the dirt in the corner where your baseboard meets floor. Which on hard floors is not something every vacuum does with ease

I'm gonna go with the shark NH15 Multi-vac It was meant to be a transformable machine you could use it as a handvac with a little guard piece that directed the airflow as a little canister or in the stick configuration. A strange little unit that was meant only for bare floors and above the floor tasks.View attachment 171051

 

[centralsweeper63]

I can imagine it would be good until it stops working.