Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I'm not very impressed with the design, but there's a guy who offers a way to convert Kirbys from bag to dirt canister.  Unfortunately, it doesn't offer dual cyclone or better technology.  It looks like you clean the pleated filter after every use.  I think I'd rather pay for bags than this gimmick.

http://www.kirbybagsneveragain.com/

Keeler is the Jerry Rubin  of the upright world. How do you like my new twist on some thing as old as dirt itself.Ill take a eureka optima dustbin and dcf5 eureka filter worth total of about 15 dollars and sell it to my Kirby customers [Boy arnt i a nice guy] 

How many times can you repaint an idea and sell it?.

Keeler knows there is money to be made and hes soo pissed at kirby he will do anything to make them look bad,

How come a kirby sentria retails for 1799.00 and costs the dealers 449.00. Take the money out of it and we shall see how great they really are. Your lucky if you can get a customer to streach for 400.00 on a new demo model. I buy them all day long for 50.00 bucks,

Just like dyson, aerus ,tristar,rainbow, patriot, miele, The gig is up,,,,,,,,,,,


P.S. i suggest keeler and rubin find a new line of work..............


regards

MOLE

If you want a bag, it comes standard with KIRBY.  If not, buy a bagless and don't worry about a conversion!

Carmine D.

Carmine,

You're being obtuse,my friend. You realize the Keeler conversion on a Kirby will outclean any dimestore bagless unit. The brushroll, the height adjustment , the large fan all contribute to much better cleaning ability. And if your Kirby needed a new outer bag, the cost is about the same as a conversion.

Mole,

Originality consists largely of creating new applications for existing devices, which precisely describes the Keeler conversion, because It is the first marketed bagless conversion for an open fan upright.

DIB,

Thank you for reminding me, I had totally forgotten about Dyson's prototype, which is pretty silly since it was the starting point and underpinning of my vision of how Dyson could have conquered the vauum world for at least the duration of his lifetime.

Trebor

Re:  cyclonic exhaust

If Dyson is the first with this type of exhaust separation, then he has a monopoly.  Any manufacturer, government, university, etc. that may be interested or in need of such separation must first purchase or license *patents from Dyson. - That's not a bad investment of [little] time and money.


DIB

*If they exist.

Trebor wrote:

It is obtuse to buy a new KIRBY then add an after market non-Kirby unsanctioned bagless converter for $150.   If you are fortunate enough to own a KIRBY but decide to go bagless then buy a bagless.  

Carmine D.

Carmine,

Are you of the opinion that a bagless BigBox vac will outclean a Kirby with a conversion on it? I don't think anyone specifically mentioned putting this on a brand new Kirby Sentria. There are plenty of G-3,4,5,6,UG and UG Diamond units out there, and owners are buying the conversion at a rate that means Jim Keeler will not be able to keep up with demand by manufacturing all of the units himself. The market rules, for better or worse, it's just the way it is.

Model 12

As to the warrany, technically it would violate it, but who is going to know? Put the bag on when you have to take it in for service.

DIB,

I do not know if Dyson patented his exhaust fed cyclonic separation chamber, and even f he did, the patents would have long since expired. This was in the R&D stage before anything hit the market

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

Does this reasoning apply for revolving brushes and uprights used on shag, frieze, and berber carpets also to preclude the voiding of the rug makers' warranty?  Just say you used the straight suction mode.  Sounds obtuse to say the least.

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

I do not remember seeing Dyson exhaust patents here in the U.S. - true.  If he was first to patent, it would be a gamble which could have a payday somehow or someway.  It could very well of been a simple and inexpensive experiment and nothing more.

It has been a long while since I read the autobiography, so I can't remember when he/his team worked on them.

You’re welcome (for the pics).

DIB

Model2 wrote:

If the Kirby conversion used at a minimum dual cyclone technology, it might not be so bad.  I do agree with James Dyson that the purpose of the bagless design was to get away from the problems with bags, i.e. that they clog.  Switching from a bag that clogs to a filter that clogs doesn't seem like a very good trade.  The Kirby has huge bags with huge surface area.  Switching to a pleated filter seems uncivilized.    I'd bet that 8 out of 10 conversion purchasers don't use the thing after 6 months. 

Severus wrote:
Well said Severus.

Venson