kirbyman65
Well-known member
I’m curious what everyone thinks is the worst out of these. I don’t think every vacuum on this list is bad, I just want to give people lots of options.
Worst vacuum.
- Thread starter kirbyman65
- Start date
Anything Shark makes is the worst. Poorly made, terrible cyclone design for a bagless, serviceability is either difficult or nonexistent for some components, many parts are either difficult or impossible to get, they often kick the bucket within 1-3 years, and despite all this their higher end models are not cheap.
Shoot, even many corded Dysons will clean better, last longer with proper care, and are often more serviceable (parts easier to get). They're not great either of course but better than Shark.
Shoot, even many corded Dysons will clean better, last longer with proper care, and are often more serviceable (parts easier to get). They're not great either of course but better than Shark.
rlsellman21
Member
The Bissell seems cheaply made, and its cyclone design is a copy of Shark, which is dumb, because they could easily make it dual cyclonic or multi cyclonic to help it maintain suction. Plus the filtration is rather piss poor, since it just uses a foam filter that gets dirty quickly. That, and it's not a sealed system, so it's just blowing dust into the air. Shark vacuums also use a cyclone design that just lets a lot of dust load onto the filters. They have a sealed system, but because of the poorly designed cyclonic separation, the filters get dirty very quickly. The pre motor filters themselves don't have any seals or gaskets, so they rely on the seals on the machine to keep the dust contained. That results in dust going around the pre motor filters and getting into the motor and onto the HEPA filter, which means it'll clog if not cleaned frequently, and by frequently, I mean after each use or two, unlike Dyson where it takes 3 to 6 months of use for the filters to get dirty.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
I pretty much agree with that rlsellman21. I don't think a machine has to be whole machine HEPA sealed as long as it has a good bag. The Tellus gm90 for instance, it had 4 filters. They were the bag, then the XXL thick cotton filter, very fine cotton or polyester filter before finally going through an electrostatic filter. That way there is no restrictive HEPA filter but all the dust is caught somewhere in the system.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
A properly designed HEPA filter is not restrictive. The US HEPA standard specifies a maximum allowable reduction in airflow in addition to the high particle capture number. I have tested quite a few vacuums with both paper and synthetic HEPA dust bags and the paper bags are more restrictive than the synthetic bags. I have not seen a HEPA filter reduce airflow measurably.
But I do tend to agree that a vacuum using a good quality HEPA rated synthetic dust bag and a good microfiber pre motor filter captures enough dust. From a practical stand point the floor nozzle is stirring up more dust than comes out the exhaust of any decently filtered vacuum. Frequency of vacuuming seems more important than getting fixated on exhaust filter specifications.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
I mean that a HEPA filter clogs and restricts airflow quicker. I understand that is because they are capturing more dust but they have the heat build up behind them and burn out the motor. I have seen about 5 different machines that were all less than 10 years old that had been put to waste because the HEPA filter had bent and literally burst.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
That is not true. They don't clog faster. The very spec these filters have to meet in order to qualify for the US DoE HEPA standard ( US DoE STD 3020 ) requires the filter to be able to trap 99.97% of particles .3 microns in size with a maximum allowable resistance of 1.0 to 1.3 inches of water gauge depending on the size of the filter. The US HEPA standard requires the filter to flow air even when it has particles entrained. That standard has its roots in the Manhattan Project where filters were designed for air handling equipment in facilities handling nuclear materials. The 0.3 micron specification corresponds to the size of specific nuclear particles the Army wanted removed from the air. The spec requires the filters to continue to flow air when contaminated.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
Sharks lack a proper cyclone, and really I would say that anything bagless is the worst. I really dislike cordless vacuums, so I also voted the v12. I strongly believe that Dyson never tried their non ball models in a real home. They absolutely cannot get under kitchen cabinets, cannot get along beds well, and the exhaust will blow any pet hair on a floor. If I was forced at gunpoint to buy a bagless, it would be a Dyson. Unfortunately, Riccar will soon be part of the worst.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
I agree about Dyson and riccar. Vacuum manufacturers really won't be bothered to follow nuclear industries guidelines. Also, they are filtering out very fine dust while vacuums have larger dust too. I have seen piles of modern s-filter Electrolux machines stop working because they have clogged up the exhaust HEPA filter so much that the frame has melted and bent then holes gets punched in the HEPA media. This happens withe Miele's filter system too.
