Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

In the press today:-
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23711862-details/Dyson+with+more+revs+than+F1+racer/article.do

Product details:-

• Motor goes at 106,000rpm 'three times faster than any other motor'
• 200 watt motor
• 65/38 air watts (switchable power??)
• £129.99 GBP RRP, powered brush version £149.99

I think the devil will be in the other details, as we learn them. Presumably it's using the Dyson Digital motor? From the photo, the collection bin looks slightly deeper and has a more prominent release switch. It has improved max suction (DC16 has 36 air watts) so I'm presuming (nay hoping) that it can run in standard mode for more than 5mins and switch to a 'turbo' mode as needed?

I have prefectly good DC16, but I could be tempted by something with a longer run time and twice the already impresive suction for car cleaning.

In all honesty, the handheld vacuum ratings don't look particularly useful.  It looks to me like CR was struggling to come up with a way to compare the things.  The designs are so different (cordless/corded, rotating brush/suction only, etc.) that the overall rankings don't seem all that useful.  The highest rated handheld, the Bissell Pet something or other, gets a poor score for handling pet hair.  The lowest rated is a Hoover with a rotating brush model/ corded model which does great on pet hair, but not surprisingly doesn't do as well on bare floors.  The only truly useful information included is the charge/use times for cordless models, and the information about the Dirt Devil Kone models that were recalled for sending projectiles at the user. 

HS:

Here's my take.  If a company has the highest priced handheld on the market by as much as 100, 200, 300 percent and more, and can't rate in the top tier of the current competion it is a pathetic overpriced worthless product.  Now even you can understand this when it's put in this way.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

And thanks for the CR info.  I couldn't open the site and don't know the specifics.  However, intuitively I can understand CR's problem with rating/ranking handhelds.  Unlike full size vacuums, most handheld buyers have specific task[s] in mind for the product.  The buyers want to ensure the product can handle the desired need.  If not, it goes back as a return until the buyer finds the right match for the job.  The last time CR rated HH was 2006, if I recall, but probably have updated the models and tests since then. 

The Wall Street Journal's consumer editor frequently rates vacuum and floorcare products.  It's done generically based on comparing the results of products specifically used for cleanups that customers are likely to do.  Plus the time involved to do them.  As I recall, the WSJ recently rated the Shark $40-$60 corded handheld with revolving brush over several others including the highest priced one on the market.  This Shark model was also rated well by CR in 2006.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

With no disrespect intended...no cord -no power worth a crap...cordless gives you a certain amount of time to do your clean-up.....with a cord you have the power to do it  and do right the first time...with far more  power....better to have to much than not enough..CR  is okay but not the stand. by what to go by...but a starting point.. In my opinion only ..I  say, buy a tiny canister w/full size motor and power  w/cord and youll by far have all you need for any and all handvac needs...with all the time and power youll need....only my view and idea of what would work best.

turtle1

retardturtle1 wrote:

I agree and would add that the same is true of the cordless stik vacs.

Although there are times when a cordless can be convenient (quick spot clean in home or car) I personally do not want to find a spot to keep another item constantly plugged in.

HARDSELL wrote:

Oh, HS the beauty of the DustBuster.  Small, lightweight, out of sight and mind yet ready to go when needed. 

Carmine D.

PS:  HS: Not to mention that the DB costs $30 not $150, $200, and $300.

Carmine D.

I came across the following on YouTube. This vacuum test is by Popular Mechanics not by CR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGnM5gFzdfc&NR=1&feature=fvwp


Venson

CarmineD wrote:

I have owned a DustBuster.  One of the first with no hose.  I do not care for that type.  Yes, small and out of sight.  That doesn't relinquish that it occupies space and needs to be plugged in at all times. 

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

I contacted DustBuster with your comments.  After I was passed around to a number of persons all having difficulty speaking [lot's of belly laughing heard in the background] a very nice old Jewish customer service representative finally got on the phone.  She said that until the vacuum industry invents a weightless, massless, hand held vacuum that is invisible to the human eye and nukes dust into thin air without a trace of debris left behind, you have to accept the physical and energy limitations of the DustBuster.  On the bright side, she said, you can always find your current DustBuster whenever you need it. 

Carmine D.