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/

No thanks. I'm still waiting for a boutique brand to come out with a bagless machine, like the multi-cyclonic machine Miele patented not too long ago (HURRY UP!!).

As a multiple-trip-winner/salesman for Kirby, this conversion looks intriguing. Without a doubt the Kirbys clean better with the dirt meter on. Bairdmeter created the double dirtmeter, the clothmeter, the doublecloth meter, and the combination dirt/cloth meter. All of them show dirt. The more dirt you show in the shortest amount of time the more impressive the machine is, and the easier it is to sell at a higher profit. The older Kirbys with the cloth bags cleaned extremely well, just like the old cloth bag Hoovers. They all leaked like sieves! The older style paper bag conversions choked off airflow, and lacked the sani-emptor which also reduced efficiency because the heavy dirt had to be shoved up the paper fill tube instead of falling into the emptor. When the new 3M Filtrete bags came along, the machine could sustain much higher airflow for a decent interval. The cylinder acts like a dirt meter. Carpet fresh will choke off any vacuum, even a Dyson. The finer the dust, the more of it is sucked onto the hepa filter as the cyclone winds up and down everytime it is turned on and off. Barring a ton of powdered carpet deodorizer, this unit may work rather well, especially in heavily carpeted multiple pet homes. Too bad I no longer have a Kirby to test it on. Maybe mom would like one for her Classic Omega?

Hi,

I seriously feel that the newer Kirbys with cloth bags and high-filtration disposable bags do quite well as  far as cleaning goes.  This new add-on, I think, creates more problems than it solves.  Kirby's disposable bags allow much more filtering area -- and already have high scores regarding emissions -- and do not require a lot of fussing about to empty. Dump a plastic bin and regulary do maintenance on a pleated filtert?  Might as well go back to the Sani-Emtor.

Besides, from what I've seen, it's unlikely that Kirby will make any major changes other than those of a cosmetic nature in the near future.  Also, considering how these vacuums are sold at prices way too high, even after getting its cut I think the manufacturer is going to stay greedy as far as bags and other income generating components of the machine requiring replacement are concerned.  Them that's got want more -- even after selling an item for a price of $1,500 or more why stop there?

Venson

When you say high-filtration bags, are you referring to the 3MFiltrete bags? I would rate those much higher in dust and cleaning power retention that either of the Micron Magic bag styles.

Trebor wrote:
Hi Trebor,

Kirby continues to get high ratings for low emissions from CR.  I have not used mine for a good while but the Micron bags in tandem with the outer bag served me well.   Considering the basic design of upright vacuums with external  bags, I have never held great hopes in reagard to emission or noise levels.  Kirby has at least proved me wrong about filtration possibilities.

No matter what type bag, Kirby has maintaned significant performance levels.  You really have to dog one these machines to affect its performance.

Venson

Don't get me wrong, I like Kirbys, but I maintain the 3M filtrete bags are far superior. I base this on no less then 5 experiences in removing the bane of every vacuum's existence-Carpet fresh and like products. I sold a G-4, pulled up a TON of the stuff, a large containers's worth out of a 4x4 area on the dirt pads. The customer called a week later saying the Kirby did not suck.

The bag was clogged with the insidious powder. Changing the bag was of no help after 5 min with the new bag installed. I inserted a G-3 bag, somewhat better, but still clogged too quickly. I finally left and returned with a mini-G3 emptor and new Classic bag attached. While spewing a fair amount of the vile substance, I was able to remove well over 90% of the offensive residue rather quickly. I used the same procedure two more times. The fourth time it was a Diamond Edition, just before the introduction of the 3M bag. On my call to the house I took the new bag with me. It worked beautifully. The 5th and final time, I used the 3M bag before I shampooed and pulled up most of the powder. This was the two speed diamond. Anyone besides me like that idea? In truth, it was a FOUR speed model. The lower speeds were different for the hose and the carpet nozzle. Overkill. Two on manual override would have been fine.

When I moved into my new house (ok 73 year old house but I just bought it.)  two years ago, the ladies I bought it from were very clean people.  I don't know what vacuum they had so can't compare.  All I know is I kept pulling piles, and piles of gray powder from the plush carpet.  I could not figure out what this poweder was but it kept filling my Kirby bags very quickly.

Finally after about a month of daily vacuuming I started to get the carpet clean of this powder.  I was told it was either carpet fresh, or capture driven into the base of the carpet.  I will completly agree that this stuff will stop you up fast, and I see no reason to use it at all.  Kirby recommends against using carpet fresh because the air intake for the cooling fans are so close to the floor it can damage the motor. 

As for a conversion, I am very happy  with the new Kirby bags, they are a bit pricy but they do a fine job.  Of course, I am happy with my Omega too. 

After a few conversations with Jim Keeler, the inventor of the bagless conversion unit, I am really sorry I do not have a G-series Kirby so I would have a reason to purchase one.

1) The unit is blowing, not sucking, the dirt laden air thru the filter, so the only seals are in the hose connection which attaches the unit to the exhaust and in the lid.

2) The dirt path is shorter than the fill tube in the back, which the laws of physics decree improves airflow. From the floor to the cylinder is about 9".

3) The cylinder is sized so that the user MUST clean it and the filter after every use. In fact, customers are advised that if they do not wish to clean the unit after each use, this is not for them. The larger unit is only for VERY large homes, or commercial use.  Jim has 5 dogs and uses the standard size horizontal unit.

4) Bagless has never been the easiest way to dispose of the dirt, but this is as simple as it can get. No latches or bottom seals to come loose. The big box bagless units have a muliplicity of seals and a convoluted airpath which lose performance rapidly.

5) One complaint about the new hepa material bags is that while they maintain cleaning power, they begin to smell of animal hair before they reach their maximum capacity, thereby defeating part of the justification for their higher cost.

6) Without the bag to fiddle with, conversion to the portable handle is simplified, and the unit would have to be easier to maneuver in the portable mode. (Imagine cleaning a mattress with the conversion unit-YUCK!)

7) As the bags fill, the Kirby can become quite heavy.  I have personally weighed bags just over the full mark that weighed nearly 20 lbs. (19.67 to be exact) The conversion unit would make it smoother to operate in upright, portable, and canister configurations. It is probably rather like pushing the shampooer unit.

8) All responses from customer who have purchase the bagless conversion have been positive.

I think the guy is an idiot... to use a Eureka Optima dirt cup and pretend he invented something.  I think a paper pleated filter on a Kirby is a terrible Idea.  Plus, the big ballooning bag is the best part.

I hated changing those stupid filter pads out when I sold KIrbys!

Hello Bobby:

While I don't think and can't say he is an idiot, I can't imagine why anyone would take a perfectly good looking and working KIRBY and mess it up, save for money and a bagless fad.  Both of which will fade away and KIRBY will still be here as it's been for years. 

PS:  I'll mesage you privately on the other messages.

Carmine D.

Carmine, and Vacuumfreeek, and all.

Jim Keeler came up with this idea several years ago, and sold these units at $150.00. He figured out how to do it less exepensively, and is on the edge of being able to lower the cost of production enough to be able to offer them to selected vac shops. This was a product developed in response to market demand.

As ANY inventor knows, you ALWAYS use off the shelf, readily available parts whenever and wherever feasible. An engineer does not design any compnents he can buy. A painter does not invent new paint, he buys it off the shelf, and with his talent converts it into an image. It may be surreal, it may wonderful, it may be horrible, depending on who is looking at it, but undeniably it did not exist before. Things which are radically new, that is, bear liitle to no resemblance or relation to anything that existed before are often rejected in the marketplace. Sometimes they fail because they are unique just for the sake of being unique and offer no real advantge to anyone, and sometimes they fail because they are out of sync with they way we do or perceive things.

If I had had the idea and the capital to build this Kirby bagless conversion, knowing there were people clamoring for it, I would have built it as well. Who wouldn't? People do buy bagless vacuums, and they will be with us for awhile yet, and there's no moral issue in selling someone a product they desire to purchase. Yet there are always those who criticize somebody else's work because it isn't putting a dime in their pocket. You go, Jim!

Trebor

Trebor wrote:
You also have those who foolishly spend money for nitrogen to be put in tires when it adds no value.

HARDSELL wrote:

Why pay for it when you can get it free?

Carmine D.

I applaud the man and like the overall concept.  He’s got his own thing going on, answers to no manufacturer[s] and has ZERO direct competitors.  Although I think he could do much more business if it were multi-level cyclonic’s (styled too). - Perhaps someday.

DIB

Perhaps in a future re-iteration, the inventor can enclose the bagless conversion apparatus inside the KIRBY bag to maintain the classic charm of the signature KIRBY form.  Might even increase its appeal and market demand.

Carmine D.

Enclosing the conversion would mean the dirt picked up would be hidden. The cylinder is supposed to be emptied, and the filter cleaned after each use. Jim says he makes people aware of this when they purchase. Enclosing the dirt container would necessitate using a vertical canister, which is easier to damage by vacuuming under a dining room table, for example. Anyone who has demo'd a Kirby with a dirt meter is aware that the Kirby feels lighter and more balanced with it on as opposed to the bag,

Having done a few (thousand) Kirby demos I can tell you that if the Kirby cleaned as well with the bag as it does with the dirt meter, the bags would fill faster than they do. I have often pulled a bag full of dirt on the test pads. Yet after the sale and I am using the bag on the customer's newly purchased Kirby in preparation for finishing the shampoo, the bag does not fill with dirt at the same rate it piled onto the dirt pads. The dirt path to the bag through the fill tube is so much longer than the distance from the nozzle to the dirt meter. For that brief second or two before the pad totally clogs, the air velocity is much higher in the dirt meter. Then a new pad is put in. So those micro-bursts of tremendous cleaning power are really what sell the customer on the machine. I think Mr. Keeler's bagless conversion is really just a large dirt meter with a pleated filter that is cleaned instead of a pad that is changed

P.S. All of the cyclonic units, in fact all of the bagless units, with the exception of this new Keeler conversion SUCK the air into the container. This unit takes air directly off the fan chamber and the dirt/sand/dust is picked up and blown into the chamber. If anyone chooses to respond to this post, can we skip all sophomoric jokes and jibes about sucking, blowing, ad nauseum, please?

Trebor,

I have seen plenty of industrial [tapered] cyclonic’s that blew.  This fella’s clear bin is currently separating dust and debris from the [blowing] airflow.  So why not separate the finer dust particles too?  And then onto the final [Hepa] filter.

DIB

Trebor wrote:

Exactly.

Carmine D.

DIB,

I did not realize there were such cyclonic devices. Wonder why no one has devised one yet for a vacuum cleaner?

Carmine,

The whole point is for people to see the dirt so they empty it and clean the filter each time. Out of sight out of mind. To put a bag over the bagless conversion would serve no purpose. If you want the bag, just keep the one that comes with the Kirby. If not, buy the conversion.

Trebor,

Check it out (from Dyson.co.uk)...

 

I apologise if this question has already been asked and answered (I can't find it if it has!), but wouldn't using this device on your Kirby void the guarantee, since it's not a genuine Kirby part?

Also, with regard to Dyson's cyclonic 'pollution remover' for motor vehicles - surely this is flawed thinking; what do you do with the sticky, carcinogenic carbon deposits it removes? The poison is out of the airstream, sure, but it has to go somewhere. I believe this, and the general apathy of the motor industry, is the reason Dyson gives in his book for why the device has never been developed further.

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

Carmine,

A rug would show damage if it were vacuumed with a rotating brush when it should not be. If you take a Kirby in with the bag on it, who is going to question the owner about whether or not they used a bagless conversion unit? The bagless cylinder only violate sthe warrany because Kirby wants to sell their bags. The same could be said of using off brand bags in the Kirby.

DIB, Severus, and Venson,

If you have ever seen a Kirby demo, or done one yourself you know that even in that small cavity there is a cyclonic action of sorts. What makes you think there is not some cyclonic action in the bagless conversion? The Kirby is producing at least 50% more ariflow than a bagless vac, with the possible exception of Dyson. Maybe the filter doesn't clog as quickly as you think in this application. People with large homes and multiplr pets are a large percentage of the people purchasing the bagless conversion. At the cost of the hepa bags, I can see where this could save them money.

Trebor wrote:
Hi Trebor,

This'll at least make DIB happy -- when Dyson started to become prominent the first line of defense by some manufacturers' nitwit designers was to take the easy way out with pleated filters so they could quickly come up with some sort of offering they too could call bagless. It's never worked. The pleated filters clog quickly, are hard to clean and usually require replacement every six months or more when they've become empacted with dirt that won't rinse out if "washing" is allowed.

Trust me, I have already lived this. First time round was with the Kenmore Evo. It used a pleated filter inside the dust bin. It was a little bulky but, overall, a pretty good cleaner -- at first. With a few months a drop in overall performance was quite noticeable even though the vacuum was frequently emptied and the filter washed. This experience also repeated it self by way of a couple of high-powered stick vacs I bought.

Later on down the line, I picked up the Kenmore Iridium, an LG designed machine with true cyclonics and there came a world of difference in the experience. There is no pleated filter in the collection bin but just one small foam pre-filter for the motor that washes out in seconds. As long as the cleaner is not allowed to overfill so that the air swirl produced around the shroud remains unhindered, only small amounts of fine dust land on the pre-filter. I washed the bin out maybe every five or six weeks to keep the air channels clean.

In the case of the Kirby doo-dad, dirty air is blown into the bin and cleaned by the pleated filter as it exits. Though the tap-n-clean fairy tale has it that all you have to do is dump the collection bin and give the pleated filter a couple quick taps against the side of your garbage can it's a lot of hokum. Those filters not only have to be tapped, nearly banged cleaned but also brushed clean to thoroughly get dirt out of the pleats. This only gets worse when you pick up a good amount of pet fur and/or fluff and lint.

Not only myself but several other posters here have tried out bagless vacuums with pleated filters and most of us experienced nothing but annoyance when it got down to maintenance and disappoint with performance. Use of cyclonics for bagless "clean air" uprights appears to have increased and the use of pleated filters has declined except in the "disposables".

The Kirby -- and probably none of the other direct air machines on the market -- is designed for this new gadget. And the only way you can live with it is to run outside to dump it and bang the filter clean two or three times per cleaning session so that you never have any major amount of collected dust to impede airflow. If a direct air upright's bag becomes overly clogged with dust its performance definitely will drop the more its fan is rendered unable to force air out. As mentioned by Severus surface area for filtration is very necessary. The surface area of the pleated filters in these devices is much, much less than that of Kirby's bags. Even if some sort of cylconic air cleaning system could be developed for cleaning this brand's dirty exhaust air, more than likely, it would only make an already not easy to maneuver machine all the more difficult to manage.

You know I hate bag prices but in this case Kirby fares better with its regular bag set-up which allows for a generous flow of air that helps them work best. Kirby may well be in line for modernizing but so far it's good enough as is. Though it may prove a bit too complex for some due to attachments, etc., current bagged Kirbys clean well, have good emissions and last a long time.

Venson

Venson,

No question Kirbys are durable and perform well. They really are not all that difficult to manuever, although there is a shallow learning curve to putting the machine through all its configurations. Most people are just too lazy to bother.

But I come back to my previous points:

1) There is cyclonic action (however brief) in a dirt meter, ergo it makes sense that there would be cyclonic action in this cylinder, and 2) it would make a difference because the air is being blown into the chamber at a rate far greater then a Big Box upright. According to JIm the horizontal units work better. The container is to be emptied and the filter cleaned after each use, that is a given.

There seems to be  resistance to even entertaining the notion that maybe this is better than the bagless units we have seen up until now. I haven't seen one in use, but then neither has anyone else on the forum (unless they are being coy and not putting their 2 cents in.) I'm not saying it's the greatest thing since the rug renovator, I just think Jim Keeler has done something no one has marketed until now, and it deserves to be tried before being prematurely dismissed as just another dimestore bagless. These have been selling for a few years now. The price has come down significantly, which is feeding demand. Are people that resentful of another's success? OK, Maybe it is a piece of crap and Jim is huckstering his was to fame and fortune, on the other hand, maybe for reasons I have postulated, it's really quite good. When I have a Kirby and a Keeler bagless conversion to play with, I'll post my findings.

Trebor wrote:

As long as the unsrupulousness can be concealed w/o a possibility of detection, it's alright.  Sounds like a rogue defense.  

You may have one or two others who agree with you and possibly the inventor is one.  Their freedom of choice but it is not mine. 

Carmine D.

Carmine,

Sorry, just didn't think about it that way

Trebor

I am with Carmine on this one.  Kirby's bags, though expensive, do a excellent job of filtering.  They are very large and hold a lot of dog hair before they have to be changed.  I do not see a bagless design being able to filter to the same level as the Micron-Magic bags, I do not see the bagless allowing Kirby to have the air-flow that they are capable of producing.  In the scope of things, is $3.99 per bag any more expensive than the bags for a Meile or Sebo?  Are they more expensive than a filter that has to be replaced every few months?

What I see is that this is a design to make someone some quick bucks, much like the paper bag conversion that were offered with the Eureka F&G bags back in the 70's.  I don't see it as a mainstream adaption, more of a niche market for a short time.  I predict that users will tire of it quickly and go back to the convenience of the bag once again.  BTW--Up until the G series you could still get a shake out bag for Kirby that allowed you a "bagless" dust cloud, but the convenience of not having to buy bags.

Now I am going to agree with Trebor for a minute.

Kirby up until the G series did have an Sani-emptor that produced a swirl to pull heavier dirt to the bottom to be emptied and allowed the lighter stuff to be forced into the bag.  This system did have some inefficiencies, however,  With the G series by straightening out the air flow, you will notice the exhaust is now pointed upwards instead of backwards.  This reduces the turbulance and allows the Kirby to generate a greater air-flow.  They redesigned the mini-emptor, I think about the G-6 to current model to further reduce the turbulance.  In any case it doesn't appear that Kirby is relying on the swirl anylonger.

Whether anyone here is impressed with the Keeler conversion is totally and utterly irrelevant. Check out the feedback on his E-bay store. He has 100.00% positive feedback. He has been selling these in high numbers for well over a year now, and Mr. Keeler has not had one returned.

One thing that has been omitted from this discussion is filtration vs.cleaning power. As Kirby (and others) have increased filtration, the retention of smaller particles has been increased significantly while the pickup of heavier dirt and sand has been significantly DECREASED. Try a G-3 bag in any successive model Kirby. Pickup power is greater by far. When we did the salt test in the demo, we always used the standard filter pads as opposed to the micron magic, because it picked up the salt a lot faster. The very hardest vacuum to kill was an older KIrby with the cloth bag where the owner not only used it regularly, and emptied the bag, but also regularly changed the belt and cleaned and adjusted the brushroll. (That and an old,old, OLD  hoover) I remember having to go back to customer's homes with a CLOTH bag on a mini-emptor to pull up ridiculous amounts of carpet fresh with their recently purchased Kirby vacuum. If your vacuum can't pick it up, it can't filter it. If the dirt is really removed there is less of an allergen problem to be concerned about. Open a window and you have let in TRILLIONS of particles like the few million you just filtered with you HEPA vacuum.

Dual cyclonic action and Hepa filtration would only complicate the design and manufacture of the bagless conversion, to say nothing of the maintenance of the unit. Einstein said "There are only two things which are infinite, the universe, and human stupidity, and I'm not positive about the former" Murphy's law "If anything can go wrong, it will. " And as someone said, "If you make it idiot proof, they just built a better idiot." What is the remedy? K.I.S.S. keep it simple stupid. 1)Vacuum, 2)dump the container, 3)clean the filter.

The fact that this design does not work well on a clean fan upright with MAYBE 60 cfm when the filter is new, and multiple seals along the air path has no bearing in this application. Dirt removing ability and filtration work against each other, always have, it's simple physics. We all know that many factors affect dirt removing ability. The distance of the air path is a big one, positive agitation, which is dependent on proper carpet height adjustment, is another. On those two principles alone the Kirby vacuum with any bag outclasses every bagless vacuum. LONG after the plastic bagless vacs have been consigned to the landfill or, hopefully, the recycling shredder, 40 year old Kirbys will still be sucking up sand the others left behind.

The filter in the bagless conversion IS susceptible to clogging if large amounts of fine power are picked up, such as drywall dust, carpet fresh, even mattress debris, so there is still a use for the bag. If you look at the USEABLE capacity of a Kirby vacuum bag, you are looking at a rectangle of approximately 11" x 6" (I'm being generous) that expands into something approximating a cylinder. The warning on the bag says "Do Not Fill Above This Line", because the filtration is blocked and insufficient air is passing through. No matter what bagless design you create, the fine dust will glom onto the filter, so simply clean the filter when the container is dumped, instead of trying to engineer around the laws of physics. Dyson has only slowed the inevitable fine dust clogging problem, but he sacrificed a great deal for it: reliability, ease of repair, and removal of heavy, deeply imbedded dirt and sand. Hmm, let's see, 1) vacuum the house, 2) dump the canister, 3) clean the filter. K.I.S.S.

As I have stated here before I vacuum daily, sometimes two or three times a day because I live with a White Eskimo Dog "Eskie".  The people at Kirby love me because I buy bags quite often. 

I have always felt the bag to see if dirt were up to the line, with Eskie hair you can't feel wher it is in the bag so I change the bags when I feel suction dropping off.  I can usually tell this by haveing to set the nozzle one click further down.  Last week when I was changing the bag, I thought.   "Gee, I'm throwing it away anyhow."  "I wonder what it looks like inside?"  So I cut the bag open with the sissors.  The bag that still had pretty good airflow, but not as good as new was packed everywhere but about three inches in diamater from the fill tube.  I wished I had taken a picture, but didn't think of it.    These bags hold a lot, though as I said most of my gatherings are dog hair, there is some sand and dirt mixed in. 

I personally wouldn't go bagless.  I don't see where this contraption would harm a Kirby as it would only increase resistance and reduce cleaning ability.  I don't see that there would be any damage as the motor cools itself via a fan in the motor case.  

Just wrote:

Hello Just:

I agree in theory.  In practice I would add the usual manufacturer and profressional's caveat:  If the user follows the inventor's instructions: Dumps after each use and cleans/replaces the filter frequently.  Something, not all consumers do, especially consistently.  While the KIRBY uses a top fan for armature balance and cooling the motor, the KIRBY inner/outer bags also serve a dual purpose, i.e. to contain the dust/dirt and assist the motor from overheating/running hot by allowing exhaust air out. 

I suspect if the invention's users do not follow directions carefully, there will be two immediate short term negative results:  (1)Motor running hot; and (2) build up of dirt on the fan and in the motor compartment of the KIRBY.  Both these conditions have adverse impacts.  Both [hot temp and dirt contamination] can be measured w/o the KIRBY vacuum being dissassemble.  At an absolute minimum, if I were so inclined to go KIRBY bagless and buy this invention for usage, [and I'm not], I would want to see independent test results for these two measurements by an ASTM, or some such recognized entity, to attest to the findings under normal and usual household conditions.  Short of this, I would be highly suspect of the affects of the bagless invention on the longevity of the KIRBY's operations and KIRBY's warranty.

Carmine D.

Just wrote:
Sorry Just --

There was no swirl. It's quite natural for heavier stuff to stay at the bottom of the bag. The Sani-Emtor was merely a collection bin meant to allow for easier emptying of Kirby's cloth bag. It got you around having to detach the whole bag for emptying and also undoing top clamps ala Hoover. Most cloth bag uprights had small inlets and a large, usually slide on in type, clamp had to be removed for thorough emptying. Older Hoovers however, prior disposable bags, had large openings for dirt entry that also allowed you not to have to empty them by way of the top opening. In regard to emptying, Kirby was the most innovative.

When ready to empty, you shook the Kirby bag from the top and ideally everything within fell into the Sani-Emtor. Later down the line around the early 1960's the Sani-Emtor was still in use but an internal sleeve was added to the bag and there was some kind of scraper on the end of it. You inserted a hand into the sleeve and brushed the inside bag wall free of cling lint and dirt. That done you put the cleaner on spread out newspaper and opened the Sani-Emtor. No cyclonics or swirl at all.

Venson

Ahh, Venson your bringing me back in time, the sani-emptor, omegas and classic3, with the zipper on the bag and the scraper to shed the dirt from the inside of the outer bag, If the customer had pets or did not clean the bag everytime it was used, the already heavy weight machine looked like the outer bag was giving birth. I use to really enjoy stuffing my arm up the bag through the emptor and trying to get it free from lodged pet hair[NOT]. It took longer to do this than to change the front bearing,fan, and the safety switch,But heck it was my job. After going through this nonsense i firmly believe that no fan first upright should use a dirt cup or bagless dirt bin. Bagless set ups are ok for electric brooms and black and decker dustbusters.............

MOLE

Venson wrote:

That damn lying Kirby salesman.  What exactally did the air do while it was being forced into the fill tube?  Yea, it swirled.  Not saying cyclonic, G-d forbid anyting should have a cyclone.  Just look at the way the sand drops into the sani-emptor of a Tradition, Heritage, Legend It piles to one end, and usually underneath the air exaust port not to the back as would be suspected.  Tradition especially used a smaller fill tube and restricted the airflow more than the later machines, you can see the effect.

I will have to admit the only time I used my Kirby as a truely bagless machine is when I was out of bags so I hooked the hose up to the blower end and hung it out the bedroom window.

Being a gadget freak I decided to buy one of the upright tornado cyclonic bagless conversion kits for my Sentria. It took Jim keeler exactly a month from the time I paid ($79.00) for it to the time it was delivered to my doorstep. Upon opening the box it was readily apparent to me that this thing was slapped together in a hurry. There are gobs of excess glue around the hole where the pipe was fitted to the canister, very low quality black paint on the PVC pipe and black magic marker used to fill in the spots where the paint didn't stick. The pipe on my unit was attached near the top of the unit almost touching the green cap which is not how it was pictured in his ad on ebay. BTW, he is no longer selling on ebay and has deleted his account. With the tube attached so high up on the chamber/cup it blows directly onto the filter which will cause it to clog faster IMHO. Since this bagless canister was designed for the Eureka it has a rectangular hole near the top opposite where Jim drilled the hole for the PVC pipe to be inserted. This rectangular hole was covered with a piece of cut out plastic and super glued into place. The glue holding this plastic patch in place was not very good and when I gently rubbed it with my finger it promptly fell off. I had to get some super glue and re-attach the patch to the hole before I could even try out the bagless conversion. When I attached it to my Sentria I observed that it rides about 2 inches off the floor at the most. The exhaust blows straight down onto the floor which is why this model isn't recommended for bare floors as it would just blow all the dirt around before the Kirby could suck it up. Another thing I noticed is that the green cap has no seal at all and air was blowing out around the cap. It was also escaping from the square patch area where it was glued because I didn't seem to get it sealed any better than Jim had. I ran the vacuum over my entire house and the thing that I don't like about this bagless conversion is that it allowed small amounts of dirt to escape through the leaky lid and patch. I know this to be the case because cat hair from my 2 cats was sticking halfway out in several spots on the patch and around the lid. Overall, I think my money would have been better spent on a 2 years supply of genuine Kirby bags. Now that I've seen Jim's idea in action I think I may tinker around and see if I can come up with something better using a root cyclone canister from a Dyson or Hoover. Sometimes keeping it simple as Jim Keeler proudly exclaims is NOT the best way to go, stupid.

Hello jhannah:

Thanks for the review and comments.  We know now thanks to you in large part how and why Jim Keeler got the price down from $150 to $79.  So much for the outstanding ebay reviews, and choruses of applause for a man who beats to his own drum and owes noone, KIRBY and/or his bagless converter customers, anything in the process. 

Carmine D.

Update, my super glue didn't hold the patch and it fell out again. I'm going to try PVC pipe glue and if that doesn't work then I'm going to give up. Jim Keeler got me good on this scam.....

Hi jhannah, Hmm . . . another bright idea for the "Don't Buy" list. Sorry to hear about the bad experience but somebody had to test it and, rest assured, we applaud you. The whole idea is tantamount to someone making a disposable kit for a Rainbow -- something that was never intended. Better to seek out a good bagless machine in the first place. Is the add-on doodad returnable? Kirby's are klutzy, heavy and old-fashioned BUT they are well put together and well thought out as I have to say the G series can clean like the dickens. I've always felt this bagless add-on thingy was totally unnecessary. Both versions of it lend nothing to making the cleaner easily mobile in tight surrounds. Best Venson

Venson wrote:

I don't think I can return it. I'm not really all that upset because I didn't expect much from this thing to begin with. I really like my Kirby bag and all. I know it's not the most maneuverable or agile machine but as you say it cleans like the dickens and it's built to last. This conversion was just a toy for me to play with and I think I'll explore using the root cyclone canister of a Dyson or Hoover just to see if I can beat Jim Keeler at his own game. Honestly I don't really like a bagless. They're just messy when you dump the dirt out. A bag is far easier to work with if you ask me. Just something to pass the time......

jhannah wrote:

I hear this more and more from bagless customers.  The bagless vacuum pitch is superior to the product.  With time and experience, vacuum customers learned what vacuum pros knew and told them all along: Bags are beautiful.

Carmine D.

jhannah wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

If more and more bagless users are complaining, then why is the market share becoming more and more dominated by bagless?  One of the posters here said 80% of the [consumer] market is bagless.  My local Target retailers reflect this number (only one tired bagged vacuum remains).  Outside of commercial, the bagged vacuum is proving more and more of a looser, and on many levels.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib:

Your perspective, if its 80 percent bagless, is wrong.  Using one retailer's venue of bagless brands in stock as a standard on which to extrapolate the entire universe, being 20 MILLION new vacuum sales in the USA per year [not counting sticks and handhelds] is equally disengenuous.   The trend to watch, which is supported by bagless users' statements is that new bagless vacuum sales, including your fave brand, have lost total market share year over year in recent years.  While bagged sales have trended higher in the same time periods. 

I admire your enthusiasm to pitch bagless still.  Although, most bagless users are getting tired of them and reverting back to bagged as the need arises.  Sticks and handhelds are the exceptions.  They are gaining ground in bagless sales, as I expected and predicted years ago here. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

An educated guess would be the appeal of not having to buy bags. The thought of having to lay out cash one time for a disposable machine outweighs the negatives. Most people don't stop to think about how messy bagless machines can really be, they only think that it will be easier, faster, cheaper to deal with. Experience tells a far different story in the real world. Most of the high end vacuums that I've seen on the market today require bags, Kirby, Miele, Riccar etc.. . There must be something to this......

I decided to confront Jim Keeler on his shoddy design and the only thing he offered me was a free filter for my trouble. I think that at the very least he should have offered to exchange this less than desirable product for one that wasn't broken on arrival. He actually suggested on the phone that I go out and buy a hot glue gun to repair it myself. LOL, that's customer service for ya. I can tell that he spent a lifetime selling things to people. He is one smooth talker on the phone. See below for a written response from him that I got last night....

I have made a lot of the units and none of the lids have leaked before, that is why I use that canister. I have tried many different jars over the 3 years that I have been building the conversions. Clear shipping tape on the inside and outside will also work. You can use the plastic from a bakery plastic container. Just get a piece that is thick, like the plastic lid from a bakery pie pan. That will work in a pinch and it will accept the glue well. It sound like you know your stuff. Thanks for the input. Jim

----- Original Message -----

From: jhannah

To: Sales at affordablevac

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:01 PM

Subject: Re: Receipt for your PayPal payment to affordablevac

Update: I decided to use Duct Tape until such a time when I can find a suitable piece of lexan to use as a patch. I have the proper glue for lexan that I use to repair the windshield of my aircraft but that glue will not work with the type of plastic you supplied. It will not bond with the plastic at all. I will look for a hot glue gun this weekend or even a Plastic Epoxy (better choice) but my windshield repair glue works well with this canister so finding a suitable piece of lexan for a patch will solve the issue. I've also determined that the air leaks around the rim of the lid are located in the grooves of the twist locks. The air is following those grooves like an escape channel. Without a rubber O-Ring or some such the problem cannot be solved. The Eureka Optima canister that you used wasn't designed with the Kirby in mind. I don't think it can handle the airflow that is being asked of it now. Have you looked at any other canisters that have true root cyclone technology? Perhaps one of those can be adapted and work better than this design. I realize that keeping cost down is a factor as is "keeping it simple" but from my perspective I would rather pay more for a higher quality product. After all, those of us who use a Kirby purchased it because it was the best at any price. It's like buying a Mercedes and trying to retrofit a Toyota part to make it work like one.

jhannah wrote:

Excellent points.  The bagless pitch was superior to bagless experience.  Bagless pitches overshot the benefits.  Users who bought into the exaggerated bagless claims are left disappointed.  Add the costs for pre and post motor bagless filters [easily $50 for both depending on the brands/models] and the time, and effort to wash/dry the filters and constantly having to dump the bagless dirt bins.  Easy to understand the reasons for the trend.  Repeat bagless vacuum sales are falling out of favor while bagged sales are rebounding.

Carmine D.

jhannah:

Jim Keeler tried to capitalize on the bagless fad and perhaps grind an ax with Kirby.  Didn't work.  Perhaps you should tell him to read the thread here.  May be insightful for him in the future.  Tho may not, but at least you ca say you told him to do so.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

LOL, I may just do that. At least I got the last word in and I hope that my experience will help a few others make the right choice before they get taken to the cleaners.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Since the bulk of handhelds and sticks use a [bagless] dirt cup, your mentioning them only supports my 80% number.  What are you smokin?


Dyson Invents Big

DIB,

I don't know where you get that  80% of the Vacuum Cleaner market is  bagless. All you are looking at is the big box store inventory and not the other venues that sell vacuum cleaners. Out here in the real world people are being turned off to bagless and buying bagged. There are  a generation or 2 that have not relly expirienced the problems of bagless and listen to the hype in ads but when they expirience the problems of bagless first hand they ask -"Is there anything else out there with less headache?"  All the major brands are still selling bagged. If it were so great (bagless) all would sell it.

                                                                                                                                                                                                   Procare

  

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

I don't smoke and/or drink.  You should try refraining from both too.  May improve your reading comprehension.

As I've said here oftentimes, sticks and handhelds are excellent venues for bagless dirt containment systems.  Full size vacuums for household usage, which sell 20 MILLION new units a year in most recent years, are better suited for bags for all the reasons illuminated on this thread.  For these reasons, full size bagged vacuum sales have gained market share in recent years while bagless vacuum sales, including your fave brand, are losing.  Add all the pros for bagged vacuums by Carpet and Rug Institute, Consumer Reports, and health care professionals for persons with allergies and breathing issues.  You have my friend a dirge for bagless in the future for full size vacuum sales including, your fave brand.

Carmine D.

procare wrote:
Procare,

The 80% number was reported here by Trebor after a conversation he had with Tom G..  Carmine an others pull many anti-Dyson claims out of thin-air which go unchallenged by the bag-sellers and bag-huggers here, so what’s wrong with going with this 80% number?

Who told you Dyson filtration is hype?  Science is not hype, unless one is talking with a competing vacuum bag manufacturer or their representation.  Excluding you, many bag-sellers and bag-huggers cannot get their heads around how to empty a Dyson with little to no dust plume and find reading and/or comprehending and/or following through with the manufacturers maintenance routine even a greater challenge.

With regards to ‘Dyson owner blame-Dyson delusional types’...  these too, find reading and/or comprehending and/or following through with the manufacturers maintenance routine a great challenge.

There are no dust plume or maintenance victim Dyson-owners, but there are some ‘bellyache like a victim’ Dyson-owners.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Humans are by nature lazy creatures of habit. Cleaning a dust/dirt bin and or filters after each use is probably not going to happen with the majority of Dyson owners. Therefore I believe that the HEPA bags are a far better choice. Personally I'm intrigued by the Dyson Root Cyclone system and I'll probably buy one at some point. However I have to admit that for my lifestyle a bagged system is better suited. No clogs to worry about, no filters to clean/change, no messy dirt plume to contend with. Simply remove full bag and install new, clean empty bag and resume vacuuming. I bet I can do that faster than a jack rabbit on a date. To go through all the necessary steps with a bagless system would require more steps/downtime.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

If you can/would , please provide the post here that you are attributed to Trebor based on a conversation with Tom G.   I'd like to see the context in which it was made.  It doesn't apply to full size vacuums for all the reasons already provided here by several posters.  It may apply to hands and sticks, which as I said is probably correct.  Maybe even on the low side.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I recall the conversation.  Although I am impressed with Tom Gasko's vacuum cleaner knowledge, I have no reason to believe that he is privy to industry sales figures. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

You're response is without logic.   Are you trying to say that the dust particles picked up by a Dyson are immune from the laws of physics.  With a Rainbow, the dust is mixed with water, so it doesn't fly.  However, small dust particles scatter when emptied out of any bagless vacuum.  That is why Consumer Reports recommends that anyone with allergies wear a dustmask when emptying a bagless vacuum.   Here are additional comments from the achooallergy.com web site concerning Dyson.

From:  http://www.achooallergy.com/dyson.asp
...
"Since the removal of the dust bin allows allergens to escape into the surrounding air, we recommend that you always empty the dust bin outdoors. If you suffer from allergies or asthma, ask someone else to empty the dust for you, or wear an allergy mask for the task."

The 80% number may be correct, but it is just as likely to be 60%.  The 80% was Tom Gasko's seat of the pants estimate - a number pulled out of the air. 

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

I'm amazed to see the huge volume of bag companies/makers producing and selling vacuum bags now.  Seems more brands of bags are offered now since the introduction of bagless vacuums in the USA than ever before in the industry.  Retailers' store shelves are filled with them.  Not a sign that bagged vacuums are in the minority and on the decline.  Just the opposite. 

My friend Tom G. also prophesied when dyson was launched in the USA that paper bags and vacuums would go the same route of the horse and buggy?  It's been 9 years now, and that didn't happen.  In fact based on the above, just the opposite is true. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

And you said that Dyson would not survive and that Hoover would prevail.  Just the opposite happened.

HARDSELL wrote:

HARDSELL:

You flatter yourself with your own spinned stories.  It was the dyson advocates and fans here who said dyson would kill off all the vacuum competition in time like HOOVER and ORECK to mention two brands that get into your craw.  That didn't happen.

BTW, did you ever answer SEVERUS's question?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
...I'd rather not.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

No need, Dib-ster.  SEVERUS is right.  80 percent is not verifiable/accurate.  Never was, never will be not in my lifetime or yours.  It is merely a seat of the pants figure to sound and look good at the time.  Obviously,  Tom G works for a vacuum brand that ONLY produces/sells bagged vacuums, namely TACONY.  If he really believes bagless will be the survivor and bagged will go the way of the horse and buggy, he would not be working for TACONY.  It would be a short-lived career. 

What Tom G knows to be true is vastly different, if Trebor recounts correctly and I believe he does, from what he says is true.  Actions my friend always speak louder than words.

Carmine D.

Well, at the end of the day if you can find a major hospital that uses Dyson vacuums, please enlighten me. Despite Dyson's best efforts when it comes dirt disposal, bags will always have a better justification.

The bagged vacuum is a technological dog.  Vacuum manufacturers abandonment of the tired consumer bag vacuum has been fast and furious.


Dyson Invents Big

DIB,

  Fast and furious. I beg to differ.This weekend  I sold four bagged vacuums to people who wanted no more bagless vacuums. One was a Dyson DC-25. When a person's health is the factor a bagless will lose everytime. I know Dyson has the Allergy seal from Great Britain but what about U.S.?   I have yet to see a doctor recommend a bagless vacuum to anyone with asthma or allergy in my area.or in writing. The cleaner of choice in my hospital is Aerus Guardian Upright. They have never used a bagless in the hospital. The only bagless vacuum I could see being used in a hospital or a  home is a central vacuum.

                                                                                                                                                       Procare

                                                                                                                                                          

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

The bagless fad's legacy in the USA, not sure about elsewhere, will be handhelds, sticks, robots, central vacuum systems and perhaps some applications for commercial vacuums/cleaning services.  WRT full size household vacuums, canisters and uprights, bagless will be primarily the venue for less expensive, non-repairable and use/dispose brands and models sold primarily through big box stores.  Bagged vacuums have been and will continue as the vacuum of choice for the majority of American consumers, households, motels, hotels, hospitals, restaurants and all other applications. 

Dyson made an ignoble attempt, through slick pitches and claims, to conquer and destroy the bagged vacuum industry as we know it.  He tried to make it exclusively bagless.  [Why is the question].  He failed.  It didn't work.  It won't work for all the reasons already detailed here.  You should be content in knowing that the legacy of your fave innovator Sir James is this:  A high priced bagless vacuum with a niche market in the USA.  Sir James will have to work very hard in the future, just like all the other vacuum makers have, to attract and keep customers buying his brand/models.  That's dyson's number one goal and mission now.  [Not warring against bagged vacuums].  By him reducing vacuum operations from 31 plus global markets to only 6 [US, CAN, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, JAPAN, and UK] in 2010, Sir James and dyson are making a realistic start. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

You still refuse to accept that the popularity of the Bagless vacuum is based on that it is better suited for the RETAILER not the CUSTOMER. In addition the companies don't position it correctly to Retailers and in turn make them only advantageous to Box Stores & Internet whores not Indies. At every step they are cutting their own business in the long term for short term profit. It's not sustainable if they continue business as usual. If Simplicity/Riccar would come out with a bagless in conjunction with their business model it would do very well.

Lucky1 wrote:
Lucky1,

You’re still lumping in the Dyson-fakes (cartridge filtered) with real Dyson vacuum technologies as if they are technological equals.  When a nothing of a company (namely Iona) got into the upright and canister business for the first time using Dyson technologies and/or designs they did $200m in three years, and most of this was direct marketing.  The primary group that refuses to accept Dyson (anything) proven technologies as advancements are Dyson competitors and their representatives.

Personally, I think the Dyson-fakes gave the independent bag vacuum business a boost in the arm... Unhappy fake users walked into independents and walked out with a bagged vacuum.  Now that there’s more and more Dyson knock-offs flooding the market, I’d expect to see a slowing of unhappy cartridge filtered-bagless vac (Dyson-fakes) owners coming through the independents door.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

While there certainly are bagless vacuums with the old filter in the middle (as well as the "Kirby conversion kit"), the trend is the use of Dyson equivalent dual cyclone filtration at a considerable discount to the original.  Since the Dyson dual cyclone patent protection is gone, you don't have to buy a Dyson to get Dyson like performance in a knockoff.
In fact, some of the knockoffs perform better than Dyson's because of other design factors.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Severus wrote:
Goofy,

I’m glad to hear you point out that Dyson technologies continue to be the trend. 

I’d like to see this better knockoff performer.  If you’re talking CR results, these do not translate to real-world results.  The Dyson insures proper contact with all floor types and insures the masses get mass amounts of dust, grit and debris into the clear bin container.  Vacuums that use a manual adjustment cannot guarantee this, nor can any manufacturer guarantee their users understand how to.

Thanks for the heads up and tip.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

The once dyson bagless only retailers have shelves full of the knock offs.  Ask the store staff and they'll tell you the knock offs sell better now than dysons which sit collecting dust on the shelves and/or are used to vacuum the stores. 

You must coat your shoes with candy cane flavoring.  You stick your foot in your mouth so often you have to enjoy the taste.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

That's new to me.  I thought there was only Dyson that had the technology to ensure that height adjustment is correct.  Is this an admission on Dyson's part that they failed to adjust properly prior to this new DC28?    I don't think there's even a consensus that this technology works - due to the difficulty in pushing the DC28.

By the way, I've always credited Dyson with having a good dust containment system - provided the cyclones are not overloaded.  The weakness is in the nozzle and brush roll with most Dysons - and apparently the height adjustment in all but the DC28...

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Severus wrote:
Venson,

The floating head always trumps a head requiring manual height adjustment when the majority of folks simply do not adjust or adjust properly.  CR can adjust a head properly, but it cannot get it’s head around the fact that the majority of its paying subscribers cannot or will not.  CR delivers a crap product in this regard.

The DC28 does work but feels heavy.  A lighter version maybe?

I’m not buying the Venson - bad guy, Severus - good guy Dyson role-play.  I find it freaky.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

You're arguing against yourself.  Either dyson had it right with the floating head and should have stuck with it.  Or, it has it right with the rug adjustments and should stick with it.  You can't argue that each is superior to the other.  You have to take a stand for one or the other as the superior approach.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Cameron,

I do what I want, and I often back it up too.  Thank you.

What is it about the ease of pressing 1 of 4 flooring type selection-switches on the DC28 do you find difficulty with or difficulty understanding?  I say joe-public or the masses CAN easily get their head around these selection choices and take advantage of these technologies.  By comparison, I say joe-public or the masses CANNOT get their heads around and/or forgo selecting the ‘all to important’ manual height adjustment (for whatever reasons).  The DC28 selection switching is very user-friendly and the Dyson floating head is 100% user full-proof.


Dyson Invents Big

CarmineD wrote:
...or we could turn that argument around and say that some folks here persistently said that Dyson should improve in that area... as soon as they're seen to improve, they're still beating the drum, because they didn't once upon a time...

DysonInventsBig wrote:
James Dyson said that he preferred the floating head method to manual height adjustment, as he believed the vast majority of people didn't bother with the convoluted method bending down to slide across a lever for each floor type. This was certainly true to my personal experience, back in the day, wondering what this lever was for on the family vacuum, since it never seemed to be used for anything. If people don't use it in practice, it's next to useless and little more than a 'me too' selling gimmick.

If you *are* going to have such a feature, the approach of having an effective implementation and easy to use controls sounds reasonable. Personally, I want a vac to do a *good* job and I'm not sure if I should worry about deep down cleaning. But for getting good cleaning scores that matter to a percentage of the buying public, it'll be interesting to see if Dyson's approach pays off - anybody here have any idea on how well it scores as yet??

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dustmite,

Just for fun, how does Dyson advise you to pick the height setting?  Do they provide working definitions for short, deep, and medium pile carpeting?    

As for the ideal system of adjustment, I would think that Sebo/Windsor is close to the ideal with it's automatic height adjustment. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB

I gotta say ,excellent point on the floating head....as i personally prefer the floating head over the manual setting. Never really seen where one

cleans better than the other ...

turtle1

CarmineD wrote:

HI CARMINE

Ive yet to see any bagless upright stand up to commercial use.....they come in D.O.A..... ..never  returning  to work. Bagged is the way to go...ive also noticed that those who once ordered sanitaires w/ shake out bags...hate them and order the bag set up.....the majority of our vac sales are to previous bagless owners...who went bagged then bagless then back to bagged.....within a year or two.  Full bag out......new bag in and your done. But i will say that bagless cans do seem to hold up very well....only come in for annual/bi-annual full service.....pretty solid machines  from what ive seen.

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Dib-ster is trying to have it both ways.  So is Sir James.  And you too with the above argument.  You want to say that Sir James had it right with the floating head and no adjustments for the reasons he stated: People don't use the adjustments properly anyway.  Then, after the defunct clutches and floating heads proved problematic on many USA carpets, Sir James got it right by adding adjustments that require manual setting, save the automatic default to medium when you power up.  Perhaps, Sir James is trying for run as a Parliament Member, and practicing being all things to all people. 

Dyson is by no means the first brand to have fingertip controls for rug height adjustments.  The HOOVER Z had them before dyson and so did the EUREKA lux Intensity.  These two models have been maligned either by Sir James/dyson fans.  The Intensity via a formal grievance with the ASA by Sir James.  The HOOVER Z by dyson admirers who impugn its lackluster sales at big box stores.  Yet both were good enough to be copied by dyson at least WRT the the fingertip control rug height adjustments.  Then too dyson copied the floating head from HOOVER's Dial-A-Matic................from 1963.  That's innovative?  Quick, get me a dictionary so I can see if the definition changed and no-one told me.

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:
True.

retardturtle1 wrote:
Thank you.

I believe going with a floating head was a genius business-move.


Dyson Invents Big

Severus wrote:
Jughead,

From the Dyson DC28 manual...
For the best cleaning performance Dyson recommends the following cleaner settings:
Setting Carpet/floor type
Deep pile - Plush, multi-styles and shag
Medium pile - Level-loops and lighter plush
Short pile - Commercial grade carpets and Wilton styles
Bare floor - Delicate rugs/carpets, floorboards, tiling, laminates, vinyl, etc.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

I didn't realize it was a true or false test.  I thought the answer was multiple choice and "all of the above."

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

You know what?  When the sales person at BEST BUY demo'ed the DC28 to me this past June, she left it on the medium setting after she powered on.  I dumped the dirt and debris from a display DC14 bin on the low pile rug and asked her to vacuum it up.  She left the rug height setting on medium.  She passed over the area one time back and forth and didn't get it all up.  I stopped her in the process.  I hit the low setting and I made one pass and picked up everything that was left.  She saw the result.  She said to me I don't like the low setting because it's too hard to push and pull.  So I leave it on the medium setting.  Gee, that sounds familiar.  Let's see.  First, people don't read User manuals.  Second, they don't set proper rug height adjustments.  Third, why bother with them?  Give them a floating head and tell them one size fits all.  Bingo. I mean EUREKA!  The answer.  Now, true or false?

Carmine D.

retardturtle1 wrote:

Hello Turtle1:

Hence, the reason I used "perhaps."  As in.... perhaps a floating head is good on most carpets but most definitely not all.  Especially if you have a clutch that makes gawdawful ratcheting noises whenever the brush bar is stalled.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Hence the reason Tom G always said dyson needs a vacuum historian who can help him and dyson get it right.  While Tom and I don't always see eye to eye on vacuum matters, we do on this one.  Didn't work for HOOVER in 1963 and the company quickly added a manual rug height adjustment then self power.  Didn't work for dyson in 2002 and FINALLY after 7 years added a fingertip control that other makers already had.  Innovation?  Genius?  Quick, get that dictionary again.  Somebody changed the definition and didn't tell me.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Too bad Oreck doesn't have a low setting.  They certainly will not pick up in one pass on carpet.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

The HOOVER basher and dyson luver but seller who now owns TWO HOOVER uprights and luvs his bagged HOOVER lightweight Platinum upright which Consumer Reports rates as top in its class tho scorning Consumer Reports in the process........perhaps as an 8/9 pound simple and easy upright to use for all surfaces, ORECK doesn't need rug and floor height settings like most full size 20 plus pound uprights with tools on board.  That should make complete sense to anyone like you who says one thing and does the complete opposite.  Oh I know, you had a twist of heart, I mean a change of heart.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
No, the fun is watching you and then attacking what you say and represent.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Watching you try and fail miserably is fun for me too and makes me laugh!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

You've got a "Kick Me" sign on your back, only you're slow to know it.


Dyson Invents Big

CarmineD wrote:

I own only the Platinum and not two Hoover uprights.  Your NPD is still there isn't it?  CR had nothing to do with my purchase.  Owning is not luving.  It has faults like all vacs do.  It will suffice until I get the urge to push another around the home.  Did I mention that I returned Orecks because of subpar performance?  Only the inventor or a filthy home owner would be proud of an Oreck.

Remember the Platinum is not the Hoover that Dyson whooped.

Perhaps a brick or cement block placed on the Oreck would exert enough down force for it to actually be effective on carpets.  Now that makes sense.  I am not doing the opposite of what I say.  I still say that the DC07 is superior to Oreck and Hoover.  Unless you have inferior carpets or could care less about clean carpets.  No twists here. 

.

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Multi-cyclonic’s, with a full-proof nozzle arrangement guaranteed a full bin and a full bank account for Sir James Dyson.  I consider this genius.


Dyson Invents Big

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

Tell me, if DC07 is so good why did dyson discontinue?  Why did it never rise to the level of being THE signature dyson model? 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Really?  Good for him.  After 5174 tries, he deserves some monetary benefits.  I'm happy for him.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Your reading abilities/eye sight are lacking.  It says kiss me.  Front and back.  Great way to make female friends!  Should try it if you ever get to Las Vegas

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I blame most of the failure on James Dyson's ego.  Combine that with following the Hoover path of offering toooooo many new models rather than improving a good thing.

However, the DC07 put a whooping on the signature "Z" Hoover that you proclaimed would cause the demise of Dyson.  Boy those Z's sure make good boat anchors though. 

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

I guess if you use a $2000 Rainbow to pick up water in your boat and paint your vehicle, it's logical for you to use a $400 HOOVER Z as an anchor.  

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I did not pay close to $2000 for the Rainbow.  Using a Z for anything other than a vacuum is logical.  BTW, are you LOGICALLY using gasoline with nitrogen in it?

HARDSELL wrote:
Hardsell,

There's no failure and there is no ego and there is no following Hoover.  Instead, since 2002 Sir James gave the industry suits an education and handed their asses to them.  Smaller men would indeed develop a big ego, but not Sir James.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Here here.  Sir James for Prime Minister.  If he can do all this for the vacuum industry, he's worth a shot at prime minister.  Perhaps the ego would even help. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Oh Carmine, you’re still reeling from my “Kick Me” comment.  I thought it was hilarious and fitting.

Sir James is not going to be Prime Minister, but instead hes been asked to be the UK’s innovation Point-Man. 


Dyson Invents Big


P.S.  Is it true...  Nevada residents get a free ride (do not pay state tax) by all the money made by the countless strip clubs and legalized whoring that's in and near the beautiful Las Vegas - baby!

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

My how you flatter yourself with your own praise.  No wonder you do not call Sir James an egotist, you are a bigger one than he.

Carmine D.

Dustmite wrote:
Why do you consider this a "free ride"?   Do you think government is entitled to your money? 

Dustmite wrote:
Severus wrote:
When Carmine criticizes real-men while hunkering down under a tax shelter (the Las Vegas whorehouses and drink to get drunk beverage industry) one has to ask...  what the hell is this guy doing giving business advise to a self-made billionaire.

Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Hoping they listen, follow the advice and stay one [Sir James is now at the multi-millionaire level] and even better become multi-billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.  Again let me suggest to you Jon Huntsman's book:  Winners never cheat. 

Once again:  Success is never about the amount of money one amasses.  Those who think so, like you, have it all wrong. 

PS:  I know or those who were less than one third the age of your idol when they made their claims to fame in the vacuum industry [many of whom are dead now but not all].  They didn't by lawyering up.  Your leader would do well if he could have had/take their advice.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

One can only wonder how things would have been different had Hoover, Electrolux, Kirby, or Oreck purchased the rights to produce vacuums with Dyson technology.    I wonder how much Oreck would have charged for a "Dyson/Oreck" vacuum. 

Severus wrote:
I believe that Hoover was offered the technology and was advised against it.  I wonder who gave that advice? 

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

You mention Winners Never Cheat and Bill Gates in the same breath?  What are you smoking? - This is delusional. It’s public record...  Gates screwed anyone and everyone (including the public) when it served him.  His monopoly and predatory practices put big numbers in his corner and not because his crap is all that-inventive, all that-innovative, easy to use or fun to use.  My Symantec buddy has just recently told me MS cannot even stop hackers in China from stealing their own MS apps.  MS is crap, but people are slaved and chained to his crap do to proven predatory and proven monopolistic [so-called] business practices and certainly not because it’s OS and/or other software is fun, problem solving-innovative, problem solving-inventive, easy to use or safe.

Sir James Dyson and his team are proven inventors and innovators.  It is laughable to think of how hard the sack-selling and lying thru their teeth, dying on the vine vacuum independent works to make a sale.  Saying Sir James steals intellectual property via a team of lawyers is just one such lie.  The lying independent is pure comedy, you’re pure comedy and so is your post above.


Dyson Invents Big

P.S.  I love target practice, so thanks.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib:

Your envy is showing.  Not very becoming.  BTW, I never use boomerangs for target practice like you. 

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

Interesting what if.  For one, dyson vacuums would not be as expensive as they are now, which will probably be the end dyson result of competing with the less expensive copies.  IMHO ORECK could not use the bagless technology for its lightweight and be competitive with its own bagged upright.  The disparity in dirt capacities would be too different to sell the bagless.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB,

If someone has an OS that can replace Windows what is stopping them from putting it on the market.  Free enterprise still exists in USA for sure. The reason for the MS monopoly is due to non competition.  If your buddy is so sharp why doesn't he market an anti virus tool for Windows?

You $#%* about theft from Dyson yet you think some has a right to use MS technology without penalty. 

Oh, now I get it.  James should have a monopoly on bagless and MS should pass priority info to all.

DysonInventsBig wrote: HARDSELL wrote:
Hardsell,

You’re ticked I defended and called you out for repeatedly calling James Dyson Hoover-like or saying he has a big ego (you’ve done this on differing posts, and I’ve said nothing until recently).  Sorry, you’ve gone Carmine on me.

How's your Red-Hoover Dyson knock-off working out for ya?  You still man enough (I hope) to know Red ain’t sh!# without first copying real-men who’ve got the bal!$, creativity and fortitude to make invention and innovation happen.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

But at least I never went Japanese Lexus..........

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Or bagless Kirby.......

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Defense is different from stupidity.  I have defended Dyson for years.  Not because of James Dyson or from thinking that Dyson is the best vacuum of all times.  I found the DC07 to be a vacuum that met my requirements to clean my home.  In my experience each succeeding model has been inferior to the original DC07.  Apparently Dyson thought the same as he has followed Hoover in introducing new model #'s very frequently that are no better than the previous.  This only works for a while and finally the consumer realizes that new model does not always lead to improved performance.  Look back at Hoover in this scenario.  Therefore I refer to Dyson as following Hoover.

JD with his ego is unwilling to admit that all his ideas are not always the best.  I respect what he has done for the vacuum industry.  Thanks to Dyson many vacuum manufacturers have gotten off their duffs and improved what they had.  As for his hand helds, tiny canisters, hand dryers, fans, etc he has failed to exceed any technology that previously existed.

Feel free to worship JD as you please.  I will continue to worship my savior and no other. I do have the highest respect for those who actually save lives (doctors, nurses and others) as well as our US military who defend the USA and those countries too weak to defend themselves.  All those Dyson inventions are nothing in comparison.

I do not have a Dyson knock off unless Dyson has a bagged vacuum hiding somewhere that he has not introduced. 

I would prefer to own all USA made product.  Malaysia is no more meaningful to me as a US citizen than China.  Why would you accept Dyson being manufactured in another country?

Regarding innovation.  Notice that British industry is questionable.  The vacuum existed before Dyson so I wonder if it is true innovation.  In fact I believe it was invented in the good ol US of A and now it is copied by many others.  Perhaps we should sue.

S: (adj) advanced, forward-looking, innovative, modern (ahead of the times) "the advanced teaching methods"; "had advanced views on the subject"; "a forward-looking corporation"; "is British industry innovative enough?"

S: (adj) innovative, innovational, groundbreaking (being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before) "stylistically innovative works"; "innovative members of the artistic community"; "a mind so innovational, so original"

HARDSELL wrote:

Looks like dyson by your own admission is following the industry leader: HOOVER.  Now, do you think toyota will do the same?  Recall Ford in 2000?

BTW, I've said your HOOVER bagged Platinum Upright with companion compact is an ORECK knock off.  Would you agree, ole chap? 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I do not understand why Toyota is being singled out.  Pull all the others off the market and leave Toyota alone.  That is the view that our government takes on profiling terrorists. 

I agree that they both have a compact canister and are sililar in weight.  Oreck can't compare on cleaning with either the upright or canister IMO.

HARDSELL wrote:

by several accounts 12-19 dead/injured from horrific accidents as a result of acceleration problems dating back to 2005 in toyota and lexus vehicles.  Currently the company averages about 100 calls and emails daily and has fro days from toyota customers affected by the recalled vehicles.  No official company statement after more than a week of the recall announcement.  Toyota customers upset by the loss of resale value of their vehicles.  Upset being told to park their vehicles and odn't drive.  CTS [outsource supplier of pedals] is perplexed with toyota by recall vehicles.   Disagreement on problem by both.  Lawyers circling the wagons.  Talk of class actions suits.  Likely reasons for toyoyta's woes.  Toyota went from glory to disaster in less than one year.

ORECK is the original lightweight upright marketed with a compact canister.  After 45 plus years, HOOVER copied.  HOOVER is the standard for rug cleaning, nice to see/hear you admit it.  Took you a LONG TIME.  ORECK is a very distant second. 

Now let's see if you change your tune on toyota...............Consumer Reports has.  Toyota no longer best for quality.  Not recommended.  Ford is numero uno for quality. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I was told by a dealer that the only 2005 model affected was the Avalon.  I do not buy into the rushed design being the culprit.  I also do not see an accelerator pedal as the problem.  Today's autos are dependent on electronics and I think there is a defect in a module.  I doubt that I will be called in to consult.  It is much easier to fall than to rise, especially with the media coverage we have today  I can't recall a manufacturer that has not had problems.  This is the most serious to date as far as I know.  The Pinto could easily have busted Ford, however they recovered.  Hopefully Toyota will do the same.  I certainly do not want a single choice for an auto.  Not to mention the loss to our economy.

Where did you read that I proclaimed Hoover to be the standard for cleaning?  Hoover certainly has advanced since the sell off and Oreck has not changed in 45 years.  Perhaps a sale is in order for Oreck. 

Gee, CR has great hind sight.  Tell us more after the fact CR.  Toyota has a serious problem.  They still surpass the other brands in all other quality aspects.

PS, I drive a Ford.

This thread is about the "bagless Kirby Conversion" and not Toyota or Ford.  If you are interested in talking cars, there are numerous forums for them.

Mike_W wrote:

Or perhaps a dyson electric car?  Does that qualify for posts here?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Only if they suck!!!!!!!!!! 

HARDSELL wrote:
The Dyson electric car has twin 76mm turbo's running 40lbs of boost.

Carmine:

You know the answer.

Mike_W wrote:

Mike:

I was asking to see if you knew.  Not me.  How about dyson AirBlades?  Those qualify as topic on vacuum Forum?  Or do you censor by poster rather than topic? 

Carmine D.