Author Topic: Vacuum Cleaners  (Read 7038 times)

mcshroom

  • Mushroom
Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #50 on: December 20, 2015, 05:50:37 pm »
I just got a Henry. Simple, effective. It seems to be quieter and work a bit better than the cheap cylinder it replaced :)
Climbs like a sprinter, sprints like a climber!

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2015, 06:00:28 pm »
There's definitely a benefit to going bagless. No more money wasted on buying bags.
We have two ears and one mouth for a reason. We should do twice as much listening as talking.

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2015, 06:03:13 pm »
I love the Dysons I've had for 20 years. Nothing comes close to their suction, although I believe newer models are less powerful.

Beware of Sebo.   It's a cult.

See:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=63272.0

and

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=81502.0

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2015, 06:03:58 pm »
There's definitely a benefit to going bagless. No more money wasted on buying bags.

Yeah, but nitpicking over the cost of hoover bags is like nitpicking the cost of camping stove fuel.  A bag typically lasts 6-12 months, depending on how much industrial dust extraction you abuse it for, so cost is unimportant compared to long-term availability.

(And don't bagless machines have filters that need replacing from time to time instead?)
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2015, 06:08:36 pm »
Henry HVR200 is looking strong on the rails just now.   And, you can buy reusable bags from the manufacturer for when you've used your initial four free ones.

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2015, 06:09:34 pm »
Miele.
I've managed to stop a Henry and get it (him?) to emit magic blue smoke.
Ballotini glass granules, absence of bag FT(terminal)W.

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #56 on: December 20, 2015, 06:12:06 pm »
Very nice but way too expensive I'm afraid.   

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #57 on: December 20, 2015, 06:14:35 pm »
To be fair, my Miele was funded by A.N.Other.....

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2015, 06:15:53 pm »
Henry HVR200 is looking strong on the rails just now.   And, you can buy reusable bags from the manufacturer for when you've used your initial four free ones.

Re-usable bags must surely be the worst of both worlds... With a bag, you unhook it, carefully close it (if the design isn't self-sealing) and lob it in the bin, minimising exposure to nasty allergens.  With bagless, you unclip the dust collection compartment, bang it repeatedly against the side of the bin - liberally distributing dust into the surrounding atmosphere - then optionally climb head-first into the dusty bin to retrieve the conical bit that fell out.  With a re-usable bag, you have much the same procedure as bagless, except instead of diving into the bin to retrieve the cyclone thinger you get to stick your hand elbow-deep into the bag to pull out the more stubborn clumps of dust.   :hand:
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2015, 06:21:08 pm »
Agreed with Kim on the re-usable bag issue.
In a word.
Why?

O/T
Did you know that the same people who put together vac bags, are the same people who put together tea bags?
Similar type of filtering technology.

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2015, 06:23:51 pm »
Ah well, the answer to that is to persuade somebody else to do the bag emptying.   :D

As for Miele: I revise my comment.   Some of them are not that highly priced.   I think that a solid Henry which is relatively easily maintained looks favourite at the moment though.

I also recall now that most if not all of the tradesmen who have trampled around Bear Towers in the past year have used a Henry to clear up after themselves.   Quite a recommendation for robustness methinks. 

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2015, 06:29:34 pm »
Henrys do seem to score highly in the no-nonsense stakes.  Though I must confess my hands-on experience is limited to the big blue wet/dry ones without the smiley face.

We went for an upright[1] at home, because hair.


[1] A previously-owned Kirby[2], on account of them being built like tanks[3] and easily un-clogged.
[2] Evil company that make decent vacuums.  Don't buy from them.
[3] If tanks were powered by jet engines.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #62 on: December 20, 2015, 06:30:24 pm »
Henry's are crude but effective. And quite noisy. Our Miele is amazingly quiet, and MUCH lighter and quieter than our 20+ year old DC03.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #63 on: December 20, 2015, 06:31:30 pm »
Ah well, the answer to that is to persuade somebody else to do the bag emptying.   :D

As for Miele: I revise my comment.   Some of them are not that highly priced.   I think that a solid Henry which is relatively easily maintained looks favourite at the moment though.

I also recall now that most if not all of the tradesmen who have trampled around Bear Towers in the past year have used a Henry to clear up after themselves.   Quite a recommendation for robustness methinks.
TBF to Henry, in the last few years when I have specced kit to be included in site kit to travel to installations in FORRIN parts it has almost exclusively included Henry Vacs.
Yes, there are better to be had, but generally, Henry are GVFM.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2015, 06:40:00 pm »
There's definitely a benefit to going bagless. No more money wasted on buying bags.

Not if your bagless cleaner rapidly gives up the ghost.

A Henry and a shedload of bags works out rather cheaper than a defunct Dyson.

I bought my Henry 1999 and he still smiles and sucks for me.

Re: A new vacuum cleaner is required.
« Reply #65 on: December 20, 2015, 06:50:35 pm »
Henry's are crude but effective. And quite noisy. Our Miele is amazingly quiet, and MUCH lighter and quieter than our 20+ year old DC03.

The expired and now eerily silent Electrolux was very noisy indeed.   If the sales bumf is to be believed Henry is supposed to less noisy now whilst still sucking and smiling!

Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2015, 06:54:55 pm »
I'm currently using a Dyson DC01 I bought for my mum about 25-odd years ago and inherited about 15 years ago. It handles pretty much everything dry I throw it at - including brick and plaster dust. No problem as long as the filter is washed once in a while. It was made before Dyson manufacturing was sent abroad which might explain a lot.

I also have a small Vax which is pathetic when used with a bag, acceptable without a bag for dry stuff (mainly wood shavings/dust) and is perfect in wet mode for spills and even clearing small drains. I've had it for about 15 years. I mainly use it as a workshop vac.
We have two ears and one mouth for a reason. We should do twice as much listening as talking.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #67 on: December 20, 2015, 06:56:40 pm »
I'm currently using a Dyson DC01 I bought for my mum about 25-odd years ago and inherited about 15 years ago. It handles pretty much everything dry I throw it at - including brick and plaster dust.

But presumably not foot-long human hair?

My problem with Dysons wasn't that they didn't work, but that when they inevitably clogged, it was an epic mission to get the hairballs out of all the convoluted pipework.  (That and the inherent disadvantages of bagless.)
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #68 on: December 20, 2015, 06:59:09 pm »
The Miele S2111 I bought about three years ago is simply superb. The bags don't work out all that dear and the suction is very powerful. If I had to be picky, the cord could be longer. It was one of their less expensive models when bought, but I wouldn't buy anything else now.

The S2111 seems to have been superseded by this, which looks identical: http://www.go-electrical.co.uk/miele-classic-c1-junior-powerline-cylinder-vacuum-cleaner.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAwNmzBRCaw9uR3dGt950BEiQAnbK966LDpIhC61zlcv5RsEo2g7uB_rjfSBxHm5AUKw_YclUaAjIB8P8HAQ
Haggerty F, Haggerty R, Tomkins, Noble, Carrick, Robson, Crapper, Dewhurst, Macintyre, Treadmore, Davitt.

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #69 on: December 20, 2015, 07:06:30 pm »
I've gone back to Henry after getting fed up with heavy Vax bagless upright not sucking very hard.

Agreed with Kim on the re-usable bag issue.
In a word.
Why?

Perhaps they like the smell.  :sick:
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #70 on: December 20, 2015, 07:09:11 pm »
No foot-long human hair in this house.

Stringy stuff does sometimes get wrapped around the brush roll. It just needs to be cut off and teased out. I do that about once a year. On rare occasions there's a serious entanglement (edges of threadbare carpets that really need replacing being the main culprits).

Getting the occasional blockage out just needs the rubber flap at the bottom of the handle assembly to be opened up (a finger'll do it - no tools required). The stuff that's too big/heavy to make it up the tube and into the vortex assembly then drop out and can be picked up to be disposed of elsewhere.   
We have two ears and one mouth for a reason. We should do twice as much listening as talking.

Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #71 on: December 20, 2015, 07:10:10 pm »
Another vote for Henry here. One I bought about ten years ago and just works, and another I rescued from a skip for when I want to abuse it properly. (I reckon that a thermal trip had, well, tripped, and that the (presumed builder) previous owner had just chucked it without waiting long enough for it to reset. Certainly when I turned it on it just worked.)

Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #72 on: December 20, 2015, 07:15:10 pm »
Lots of votes for Henry, but no one's mentioned Hetty yet? :'(

Ours coped with lots of plaster dust and building rubble in a previous house, and is still smiling and sucking. :)

Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #73 on: December 20, 2015, 07:20:02 pm »
Poor Hetty. We're such sexists.

(Is there actually a difference other than pink vs red?)

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Vacuum Cleaners
« Reply #74 on: December 20, 2015, 07:21:04 pm »
No foot-long human hair in this house.

QED.  While there are a proliferation of highly competent vacuums that can cope with pretty much anything else, it seems that removal of long hair from carpet is an engineering problem that's yet to be solved satisfactorily.

Cylinders can't do it, because suction alone is insufficient to remove long hair from carpet.  Airflow-driven rollers (including the otherwise excellent Zipp Brush) can't do it, because as soon as they begin to clog, they stall and become useless.

Uprights with powered rollers will do an admirable job of winding the hair around the roller, with sufficient force to break the hair and prevent jams, so there's no major loss of performance.  This gets the carpet clean, but leaves you with a roller wound in hair to unclog.

Most uprights only expect you to remove the roller infrequently, for drive belt replacement.  This often requires the cleaner be lain on its side, and perhaps (as in the case of the Dysons we've had) screws removed to gain access to the roller.  This is a complete arse when you have to do it on average every other hoovering session.  I chose the Kirby not because it's particularly innovative, but because its classic design means the entire roller unit is easily removed and worked on separately, without need for tools (other than something sharp to cut the hair).
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...