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/

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