Shark....nuff said.
Upright vacuum recommendation
- Thread starter PandaBear
- Start date
I wonder if there are still any direct fan vacuum cleaners still made like the old fashioned looking Kirby models. It's not just the quality of construction of a kirby that makes it work well but the efficient and fundamentally different design. Although I haven't seen one in the flesh, Oreck might be another example of a direct fan cleaner. If the bag inflates it's a direct fan type.
A Kirby is a direct-fan cleaner with the fan mounted close to the suction opening. Dirt passes through the fan before being blown straight into the bag which is why they have soft bags that inflate. Because of the very short airpath, direct-fan cleaners create a very efficient airflow from a relatively low power motor.
The more recent and now almost ubiquitous bypass cleaners use the fan to create a vacuum around the outside of the dust bag which is why they have a sealed hard body but the very much longer air path is considerably less efficient, and generally requires 2 to 3 times as much power as a direct-fan cleaner to achieve the same results. This is why we ended up with upright cleaners having bigger fan motors. In typical fashion, consumers were sold the bigger is better idea and that more watts meant a better cleaner. By the time this had led to cleaners with1800 watt motors, it had gotten so out of hand that for environmental reasons, Europe saw fit to limit the maximum power of a domestic vacuum cleaner to 900 watts which if not forcing them back to the direct fan design has at least made them consider efficiency.
A Kirby is a direct-fan cleaner with the fan mounted close to the suction opening. Dirt passes through the fan before being blown straight into the bag which is why they have soft bags that inflate. Because of the very short airpath, direct-fan cleaners create a very efficient airflow from a relatively low power motor.
The more recent and now almost ubiquitous bypass cleaners use the fan to create a vacuum around the outside of the dust bag which is why they have a sealed hard body but the very much longer air path is considerably less efficient, and generally requires 2 to 3 times as much power as a direct-fan cleaner to achieve the same results. This is why we ended up with upright cleaners having bigger fan motors. In typical fashion, consumers were sold the bigger is better idea and that more watts meant a better cleaner. By the time this had led to cleaners with1800 watt motors, it had gotten so out of hand that for environmental reasons, Europe saw fit to limit the maximum power of a domestic vacuum cleaner to 900 watts which if not forcing them back to the direct fan design has at least made them consider efficiency.
I've been around Kirby vacuums all my life. My father traded a valve grind for a new Kirby back in 1961. Got all the attachments too. Back then it was OK to get your wife a vacuums, washing machines and dryers as gifts.
When mom passed I inherited the Kirby G5 she got from her sister. Other than Kirby being HEAVY, they have great suction. Actually too good. The story goes that some little kid got an eye sucked out of their head when they were playing with a Kirby. No doubt lawsuits followed. I remember several of mom's replacement Kirby hoses being perforated to lessen the suck.
I understand that dealing with Kirby sales is not a good experience.
When mom passed I inherited the Kirby G5 she got from her sister. Other than Kirby being HEAVY, they have great suction. Actually too good. The story goes that some little kid got an eye sucked out of their head when they were playing with a Kirby. No doubt lawsuits followed. I remember several of mom's replacement Kirby hoses being perforated to lessen the suck.
I understand that dealing with Kirby sales is not a good experience.
Try getting replacement parts for a Panasonic when it get older.
I just keep repairing my twenty some year old Hoover Windtunnel. Nothing comes close to it for suction, and that is what a vacuum cleaner is supposed to do, produce a high differential pressure. It does that.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
100%! We have two and they are fantastic machines.
Down to 5 functioning vacs. Upstairs is the Miele for the bedrooms because of its hypo-allergenic filter. It is quiet and attachment work great. I keep a Shark Rocket up right in my man cave. It is light, has good suction the beater bar pulls itself over the rug. It is easy to dump the basket which may be a qt or so. down stairs is a old Electrolux torpedo. It is great on rugs and wood floors. Runs great, but needs a new recoil power cord. That has been re-wired to eliminate the wind up. I had to split the case and the plastic slides didn't survive. It is gorilla taped together. When I run out of bags for it.. Marina got sucked in by Dyson's advertising. Also have a couple wet dry vacs.
I’ve had a Dyson ball for 8 years. Handles the two labs shedding fur like a pro. No issues really, very reliable. We have two kids and seem to use the shark cordless upright a lot for all the LVP floors in the common areas. It’s fantastic but the battery won’t do a whole house as it drains fast on carpet. Very impressed with the shark though. We have cleaners come once a month so I find the shark takes care of the inbetween just fine. If I could only have one I’d still pick Dyson which has been indestructible for me.
Hoover conquest commercial is what we used at work in housekeeping. they performed very well and the HK people really liked them over the advance brand,,myself at home i use a Hoover pet model whole house and a dewalt 9g shop vac that functions well for home use messes.
I've had a Dyson Ball (Costco model) since 2015.
The best thing about it is that it sucks. The vacuum is very strong.
Next best thing is the maneuverability, at least on carpet. On hard floors, it requires a lot more handle torque to maneuver, and the pickup performance isn't great.
Dyson's customer service, if you're near one of their service centers, and can take it in person, is very good. On the flip side, you stand a good chance of having to utilize it.
Not so great?
The ergonomics. Compared to the upright I had before, the cord is attached at a lower point, and is easier to trip over. Because the top spindle for winding the cord is attached close to the end of the wand at the handle, there is no such thing as pulling the wand out for a quick cleanup job, without first releasing the entire cord. It's held captive by the cord in the wound state.
It's also a tall vacuum, with a relative small footprint, which makes it unstable and easier to tip over. Especially when trying to use the wand, which has a very stiff hose that requires a lot of force to extend. That results in dragging the vacuum, or having it fall over.
The end of the hose itself is a longish rigid wand, and won't squeeze into tight spaces due to its length. Unlike my prior vacuum, where the end of the hose is merely a flexible interface that accommodates one or two sections of rigid wand, then the attachment, or a combination thereof. With the Dyson, one is always stuck with that long section of hard tubing whether it's suitable or not.
Those hose/wand also serves to provide a good portion of the rigidity of the "spine" of the vacuum, and should be locked in place when it is being used, carried, or otherwise in motion. When not in place, it loses a lot of its strength, the whole thing can bend, and lead to other issues…
…because the canister also serves, albeit to a smaller degree, as a piece of the puzzle that's needed to give the whole thing strength and integrity.
The top handle of the canister (which BTW is the only sanctioned method to carry/move the unit) contains a latch that locks the canister in place, and also contributes to the strength of the "spine." When that latch wears, and weakens, what happens in the course of using the vacuum is that the forces cause the spine to bend and flex, creating clearance in the latch interface, and causing the cansiter to unlatch itself. Even with the hose in place.
That's really the biggest flaw with the Ball, and it's a fundamanetal design issue. It relies so much on the strength and rigidity of the center spine, but without the reinforcement provided by the wand, and canister, it's too weak to serve that role on its own. Even with everything in place, and in good condition, it could be stronger. Anyone with a whit of understanding of physics or engineering would understand the issue.
My unit is also on its second replacement brush head module. It has its own motor, which is nice, no belts, but the first one had a clutch failure, which resulted in half the rotating brush losing drive. It was replaced under warranty, but that unit failed with a weak motor after a year, and was replaced by another, to Dyson's credit, outside of the original warranty period. During that visit, the tech also replaced the canister handle, so it wouldn't break loose again as described above. I didn't even have to ask him to do that, he did it on his own initiative, probably because it's not an uncommon occurrence.
Because the brush head is driven by its own motor, part of the maintenance routine is cleaning out the head and its brush bar, especially in households with long hair. But take note, what they leave out in the instructions is that fine hair also accumulates in the gaps between the motor housing and the triangular spindles, and can just as easily put drag on the motor, and shorten its life span. One of the commenters also points that out. BTDT.
Coming from old school vacuums like a metal Eureka, I was skeptical of the plastics. But the 80s/90s Pannys/Kenmores, and the Sharp like I also have, they've held up. Those were good vacuums, but no longer an option.
I had a good long conversation with the local vacuum repair shop, and his experience was that Dyson's plastics eventually become brittle, and fail. I haven't reached that stage yet, and when the next major failure occurs, I'll probably dump the thing.
Based on this experience, I wouldn't buy another Dyson, primarily because of its fundamental engineering flaws, and I think anyone here, who has experience taking things apart, and knowing how they function, would understand that. The general public, less so, and the slick marketing helps maintain their image.
I don’t think this has been mentioned yet but I would get one with a HEPA air filtration system if you can find one. When you vacuum it sucks up air and rejects the air. This kicks up a lot of dust and throws it around the room. If it doesn’t have a HEPA filter to clean the air before it rejects it’s going to throw those small particles around the home causing poor indoor air quality. Most vacuums have an air filter but without a HEPA rating. The filtering quality of these can be suspect and a guessing game.
www.broan-nutone.com
The Surprising Truth: How Vacuuming Can Worsen Indoor Air Quality
www.broan-nutone.com
All of the Shark and Dyson upright vacuum cleaners have HEPA rated filters on their exhaust discharge port.
Thanks for the detailed analysis. I like sturdy vacuum and I do need it as I will use it to clean stairs and they do tip over once in a while. I checked the Dyson Ball 3 and it is already 3-4 lbs heavier than the Shark DuoClean. Coming from a Hoover that lasted like 7-8 years before the plastic becomes brittle, I think what you said about the Dyson is a bit of a concern to me (along with the potential circuit board or motor driver issue in the earlier models).
Wife said light weight is the upmost importance, and the Shark can swivel turn, so we ended up with the Shark DuoClean from Costco. Up the budget to $400 to consider all models and picked a $250-300 Shark.
Similar threads
