Next EU Meddling Target: Vacuum Cleaners
Discussion
MauriceMinor said:
I live in Scotland. When we go independent in a few weeks time, then am I right in assuming the wattage restriction will not apply?
Are you leaving the EU? Actually, my knowledge of Scotland is that you are even "Greener" than the UK/England what with all that "zero waste" stuff. Derek Smith said:
JensenA said:
In that case I guess you'd agree with a ban on all cars over 2 litres? Why on earth would anyone need a car with. 4 litre engine?
Why should you think that? There's nothing in my post to suggest that. Why do posters try to prove a point by trying to change what others say?HertsBiker said:
Derek Smith said:
JensenA said:
In that case I guess you'd agree with a ban on all cars over 2 litres? Why on earth would anyone need a car with. 4 litre engine?
Why should you think that? There's nothing in my post to suggest that. Why do posters try to prove a point by trying to change what others say?Scuffers said:
exactly, just how much CO2 has been emitted to come up with this bulls
t to start with?
out of interest, Dyson is challenging this in the courts, and before you go off on one, they don't actually make a 1600+W cleaner.
his point is that this does nothing to move clean tech on, and creates just another burden on the industry that will effectively achieve nothing.
As a side, I keep reading wild figure for how much electricity is used per household cleaner, and it;s just total fiction, unless you live in Buck palace or the like, I struggle to see anybody actually has their cleaner running for more than ~1 hour a week, (I mean actually running, not out of the cupboard).
ours is a DC39 has a 1,300W motor, so that's 52x1.3Kw = 67.6Kwh per year ie, some £9 worth of electric (and about 10Kg's of CO2 if you believe the figures)
And when the Icelandic volcano goes up all that co2 saving will be for nought. Not that it already isn't of course. t to start with?out of interest, Dyson is challenging this in the courts, and before you go off on one, they don't actually make a 1600+W cleaner.
his point is that this does nothing to move clean tech on, and creates just another burden on the industry that will effectively achieve nothing.
As a side, I keep reading wild figure for how much electricity is used per household cleaner, and it;s just total fiction, unless you live in Buck palace or the like, I struggle to see anybody actually has their cleaner running for more than ~1 hour a week, (I mean actually running, not out of the cupboard).
ours is a DC39 has a 1,300W motor, so that's 52x1.3Kw = 67.6Kwh per year ie, some £9 worth of electric (and about 10Kg's of CO2 if you believe the figures)
beko1987 said:
I welcome this ruling (as a vacuum cleaner collector)
The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have ste filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.
Machines like this Plastivac 1 and this Plastivac 2 need the powerful motor to overcome the clogging of the filter, so the suction stays adequate when full.
With this new ruling (which is only for 1600w at the moment, lowering again to 900w in 2017), hopefully machines will have better filtration and airflow paths to make the most of the reduced wattage.
Most of the machines in my collection are 400-800w, and are perfectly fine, infact better than the cheap chinese screamers as thought was put into everything, not just power. A Hoover Turbopower 1 is a dirty air vacuum, and only has 410w of power. However, due to an excellent brushroll, combined with well thought out airflow paths results in a better clean, as it picks the carpet up gently, beats and sweeps the dirt out (remember 'Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans'?) and carries it away easily. The Hoover Hurricane linked to above, once refurbished so it actually worked, just glued itself down to the floor, and didnt get much deep down rubbish out at all as the suction was just too strong for the cheap brushroll to do anything.
Numatic have re-designed their Henry and other machines already, and speaking to fellow collectors who have them they work just as well as the old 1200w motors did. But then Numatic have always got it right as they have large bags, big free flowing filters and the system is well sealed.
Dyson are laughing at the moment, as their machines are all under 1600w already, and have the better cyclone design, due in part to the millions invested, and ruthless suing of anyone who tries to better it. This machine here Hoover Vortex was pulled from sale after a few months as Dyson sued Hoover to kingdom come over certain aspects of the design. Hoover bodged it about and re-branded it as a Vortex Power, Whirlwind and other names, resulting in machines mainly rebadged from America. Most modern bagless vacs are sold under many different brands, Vax are very guilty of this, there's just no R&D anymore, something which will hopefully make a re-appearance now raw horsepower has vanished
This machine is from 1986 U1222 Scheme A and has the 410w dirty fan design I mentioned earlier. This machine 1977 Electrolux 504 has a clean fan design, but still only 510w. Wheras this one Hoover Vortex is 2200w, and after that very video was filthy inside, even where it shouldnt be. Took ages to clean it up again ready for sale!
Oh, and Sebo are good, but then so were vacuums back in the day... Hoover 652 vs Sebo Automatic X1!
And this why PH is brilliant - whatever the subject, there is a subject matter expert only one post away... The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have s
te filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.Machines like this Plastivac 1 and this Plastivac 2 need the powerful motor to overcome the clogging of the filter, so the suction stays adequate when full.
With this new ruling (which is only for 1600w at the moment, lowering again to 900w in 2017), hopefully machines will have better filtration and airflow paths to make the most of the reduced wattage.
Most of the machines in my collection are 400-800w, and are perfectly fine, infact better than the cheap chinese screamers as thought was put into everything, not just power. A Hoover Turbopower 1 is a dirty air vacuum, and only has 410w of power. However, due to an excellent brushroll, combined with well thought out airflow paths results in a better clean, as it picks the carpet up gently, beats and sweeps the dirt out (remember 'Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans'?) and carries it away easily. The Hoover Hurricane linked to above, once refurbished so it actually worked, just glued itself down to the floor, and didnt get much deep down rubbish out at all as the suction was just too strong for the cheap brushroll to do anything.
Numatic have re-designed their Henry and other machines already, and speaking to fellow collectors who have them they work just as well as the old 1200w motors did. But then Numatic have always got it right as they have large bags, big free flowing filters and the system is well sealed.
Dyson are laughing at the moment, as their machines are all under 1600w already, and have the better cyclone design, due in part to the millions invested, and ruthless suing of anyone who tries to better it. This machine here Hoover Vortex was pulled from sale after a few months as Dyson sued Hoover to kingdom come over certain aspects of the design. Hoover bodged it about and re-branded it as a Vortex Power, Whirlwind and other names, resulting in machines mainly rebadged from America. Most modern bagless vacs are sold under many different brands, Vax are very guilty of this, there's just no R&D anymore, something which will hopefully make a re-appearance now raw horsepower has vanished
This machine is from 1986 U1222 Scheme A and has the 410w dirty fan design I mentioned earlier. This machine 1977 Electrolux 504 has a clean fan design, but still only 510w. Wheras this one Hoover Vortex is 2200w, and after that very video was filthy inside, even where it shouldnt be. Took ages to clean it up again ready for sale!
Oh, and Sebo are good, but then so were vacuums back in the day... Hoover 652 vs Sebo Automatic X1!
Edited by beko1987 on Monday 25th August 16:21
If you actually worked out how much energy these INTERMITTENTLY used appliances consume? Ban them all completely. Assume the worst case scenario from the AGW fakers that call themselves scientists, you still wouldn't even stop the earth warming by 0.00001C in a hundred years. It is nuts.
beko1987 said:
I welcome this ruling (as a vacuum cleaner collector)
The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have ste filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.
Machines like this Plastivac 1 and this Plastivac 2 need the powerful motor to overcome the clogging of the filter, so the suction stays adequate when full.
With this new ruling (which is only for 1600w at the moment, lowering again to 900w in 2017), hopefully machines will have better filtration and airflow paths to make the most of the reduced wattage.
Most of the machines in my collection are 400-800w, and are perfectly fine, infact better than the cheap chinese screamers as thought was put into everything, not just power. A Hoover Turbopower 1 is a dirty air vacuum, and only has 410w of power. However, due to an excellent brushroll, combined with well thought out airflow paths results in a better clean, as it picks the carpet up gently, beats and sweeps the dirt out (remember 'Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans'?) and carries it away easily. The Hoover Hurricane linked to above, once refurbished so it actually worked, just glued itself down to the floor, and didnt get much deep down rubbish out at all as the suction was just too strong for the cheap brushroll to do anything.
Numatic have re-designed their Henry and other machines already, and speaking to fellow collectors who have them they work just as well as the old 1200w motors did. But then Numatic have always got it right as they have large bags, big free flowing filters and the system is well sealed.
Dyson are laughing at the moment, as their machines are all under 1600w already, and have the better cyclone design, due in part to the millions invested, and ruthless suing of anyone who tries to better it. This machine here Hoover Vortex was pulled from sale after a few months as Dyson sued Hoover to kingdom come over certain aspects of the design. Hoover bodged it about and re-branded it as a Vortex Power, Whirlwind and other names, resulting in machines mainly rebadged from America. Most modern bagless vacs are sold under many different brands, Vax are very guilty of this, there's just no R&D anymore, something which will hopefully make a re-appearance now raw horsepower has vanished
This machine is from 1986 U1222 Scheme A and has the 410w dirty fan design I mentioned earlier. This machine 1977 Electrolux 504 has a clean fan design, but still only 510w. Wheras this one Hoover Vortex is 2200w, and after that very video was filthy inside, even where it shouldnt be. Took ages to clean it up again ready for sale!
Oh, and Sebo are good, but then so were vacuums back in the day... Hoover 652 vs Sebo Automatic X1!
Henry's are crap, his argument is poor.The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have s
te filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.Machines like this Plastivac 1 and this Plastivac 2 need the powerful motor to overcome the clogging of the filter, so the suction stays adequate when full.
With this new ruling (which is only for 1600w at the moment, lowering again to 900w in 2017), hopefully machines will have better filtration and airflow paths to make the most of the reduced wattage.
Most of the machines in my collection are 400-800w, and are perfectly fine, infact better than the cheap chinese screamers as thought was put into everything, not just power. A Hoover Turbopower 1 is a dirty air vacuum, and only has 410w of power. However, due to an excellent brushroll, combined with well thought out airflow paths results in a better clean, as it picks the carpet up gently, beats and sweeps the dirt out (remember 'Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans'?) and carries it away easily. The Hoover Hurricane linked to above, once refurbished so it actually worked, just glued itself down to the floor, and didnt get much deep down rubbish out at all as the suction was just too strong for the cheap brushroll to do anything.
Numatic have re-designed their Henry and other machines already, and speaking to fellow collectors who have them they work just as well as the old 1200w motors did. But then Numatic have always got it right as they have large bags, big free flowing filters and the system is well sealed.
Dyson are laughing at the moment, as their machines are all under 1600w already, and have the better cyclone design, due in part to the millions invested, and ruthless suing of anyone who tries to better it. This machine here Hoover Vortex was pulled from sale after a few months as Dyson sued Hoover to kingdom come over certain aspects of the design. Hoover bodged it about and re-branded it as a Vortex Power, Whirlwind and other names, resulting in machines mainly rebadged from America. Most modern bagless vacs are sold under many different brands, Vax are very guilty of this, there's just no R&D anymore, something which will hopefully make a re-appearance now raw horsepower has vanished
This machine is from 1986 U1222 Scheme A and has the 410w dirty fan design I mentioned earlier. This machine 1977 Electrolux 504 has a clean fan design, but still only 510w. Wheras this one Hoover Vortex is 2200w, and after that very video was filthy inside, even where it shouldnt be. Took ages to clean it up again ready for sale!
Oh, and Sebo are good, but then so were vacuums back in the day... Hoover 652 vs Sebo Automatic X1!
Edited by beko1987 on Monday 25th August 16:21
The only thing going for the henry is it is damn near impossible to break them.
skyrover said:
beko1987 said:
I welcome this ruling (as a vacuum cleaner collector)
The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have ste filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.
Machines like this Plastivac 1 and this Plastivac 2 need the powerful motor to overcome the clogging of the filter, so the suction stays adequate when full.
With this new ruling (which is only for 1600w at the moment, lowering again to 900w in 2017), hopefully machines will have better filtration and airflow paths to make the most of the reduced wattage.
Most of the machines in my collection are 400-800w, and are perfectly fine, infact better than the cheap chinese screamers as thought was put into everything, not just power. A Hoover Turbopower 1 is a dirty air vacuum, and only has 410w of power. However, due to an excellent brushroll, combined with well thought out airflow paths results in a better clean, as it picks the carpet up gently, beats and sweeps the dirt out (remember 'Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans'?) and carries it away easily. The Hoover Hurricane linked to above, once refurbished so it actually worked, just glued itself down to the floor, and didnt get much deep down rubbish out at all as the suction was just too strong for the cheap brushroll to do anything.
Numatic have re-designed their Henry and other machines already, and speaking to fellow collectors who have them they work just as well as the old 1200w motors did. But then Numatic have always got it right as they have large bags, big free flowing filters and the system is well sealed.
Dyson are laughing at the moment, as their machines are all under 1600w already, and have the better cyclone design, due in part to the millions invested, and ruthless suing of anyone who tries to better it. This machine here Hoover Vortex was pulled from sale after a few months as Dyson sued Hoover to kingdom come over certain aspects of the design. Hoover bodged it about and re-branded it as a Vortex Power, Whirlwind and other names, resulting in machines mainly rebadged from America. Most modern bagless vacs are sold under many different brands, Vax are very guilty of this, there's just no R&D anymore, something which will hopefully make a re-appearance now raw horsepower has vanished
This machine is from 1986 U1222 Scheme A and has the 410w dirty fan design I mentioned earlier. This machine 1977 Electrolux 504 has a clean fan design, but still only 510w. Wheras this one Hoover Vortex is 2200w, and after that very video was filthy inside, even where it shouldnt be. Took ages to clean it up again ready for sale!
Oh, and Sebo are good, but then so were vacuums back in the day... Hoover 652 vs Sebo Automatic X1!
Henry's are crap, his argument is poor.The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have s
te filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.Machines like this Plastivac 1 and this Plastivac 2 need the powerful motor to overcome the clogging of the filter, so the suction stays adequate when full.
With this new ruling (which is only for 1600w at the moment, lowering again to 900w in 2017), hopefully machines will have better filtration and airflow paths to make the most of the reduced wattage.
Most of the machines in my collection are 400-800w, and are perfectly fine, infact better than the cheap chinese screamers as thought was put into everything, not just power. A Hoover Turbopower 1 is a dirty air vacuum, and only has 410w of power. However, due to an excellent brushroll, combined with well thought out airflow paths results in a better clean, as it picks the carpet up gently, beats and sweeps the dirt out (remember 'Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans'?) and carries it away easily. The Hoover Hurricane linked to above, once refurbished so it actually worked, just glued itself down to the floor, and didnt get much deep down rubbish out at all as the suction was just too strong for the cheap brushroll to do anything.
Numatic have re-designed their Henry and other machines already, and speaking to fellow collectors who have them they work just as well as the old 1200w motors did. But then Numatic have always got it right as they have large bags, big free flowing filters and the system is well sealed.
Dyson are laughing at the moment, as their machines are all under 1600w already, and have the better cyclone design, due in part to the millions invested, and ruthless suing of anyone who tries to better it. This machine here Hoover Vortex was pulled from sale after a few months as Dyson sued Hoover to kingdom come over certain aspects of the design. Hoover bodged it about and re-branded it as a Vortex Power, Whirlwind and other names, resulting in machines mainly rebadged from America. Most modern bagless vacs are sold under many different brands, Vax are very guilty of this, there's just no R&D anymore, something which will hopefully make a re-appearance now raw horsepower has vanished
This machine is from 1986 U1222 Scheme A and has the 410w dirty fan design I mentioned earlier. This machine 1977 Electrolux 504 has a clean fan design, but still only 510w. Wheras this one Hoover Vortex is 2200w, and after that very video was filthy inside, even where it shouldnt be. Took ages to clean it up again ready for sale!
Oh, and Sebo are good, but then so were vacuums back in the day... Hoover 652 vs Sebo Automatic X1!
Edited by beko1987 on Monday 25th August 16:21
The only thing going for the henry is it is damn near impossible to break them.
For deeply carpeted rooms, a henry with a turbobrush will be fine. Henrys standard floor tool is suction only, which will never be as good as agitation for carpets. Hence why their used mostly comemrcially, on thin carpet/hard floors where agitation doesnt matter as the dirt cannot get down into the carpet anyway.
Their also fine for diy/car use. I tried to vacuum our very deep pile rug the other day with my 1993 Henry when I took a DC04 apart on it and got covered in plaster dust, tbh it was rubbish, but running an upright with spinning brushroll over it did the job. However, the DC07 I used instantly clogged its pre motor filter, as plaster dust is too light for the cyclone to contain, whereas 'crap' henry as I call him (due to the jobs I use him for) was still spotless under the hood (used with a hepaflo bag and old style filter)
There's an air powered turbo brush available for Henry, there's an electric turbobrush version (Henry Hound/Turbo). The new John and Lewis ones, and Harry have a turbo brush out of the box. If your Henry is rubbish then perhaps you should check your filters? Or if you have used it bagless extensivley, strip it apart, wash all the palstics and seals to get rid of the coating of dust that will be killing your suction,pop the filter through the washing machine (after removing the cage and seal) and re-assemble, then report back.
Plus, dont forget this rule is only for new machines. Second hand refurbs are exempt (which will be good news in 2017/19 whenever it is when it drops again to 900w, I can keep my Dyson sideline going!)
BlackLabel said:
The EU's vacuum cleaner ban sucked. Now the kettle ban is making my blood boil. When will this tyranny end?
Well, clearly they're right - if you can boil things by reading use of a kettle is unnecessary.I would be so much more inclined to agree that this legislation was bad if the people arguing against it weren't hysterical hyperbolic morons.
This isn't tyranny you f
ktard, a place where calling David Cameron a tosser and a motherfking with the brains and moral fortitude a slug would get you a nice new room, without lights, and visits from friendly men with pliers, is a tyranny. This is a place where we have cheap energy, which is wonderful, but occasionally use that energy on things like shoddily designed consumer products, because we're complacent about it, which is less wonderful. You might disagree with this course of action, but if you're not going to make the effort to understand the reasoning behind it then the people you're trying to influence will rightly treat you like an idiot and ignore you.
I have little problem with the EU fkwits tampering like this. It stops them interfering in things that matter.
Having said that, Vacuums clearly don't need massive motors unless they're badly designed so maybe it's not that bad a thing, though probably hardly noticeable in the scheme of things. Same with hairdriers.
Now kettles, I don't get. I would have thought most kettles were pretty efficient as it's such a simple application and all that would happen if they cut the rating would be longer boiling times.
kwits tampering like this. It stops them interfering in things that matter.Having said that, Vacuums clearly don't need massive motors unless they're badly designed so maybe it's not that bad a thing, though probably hardly noticeable in the scheme of things. Same with hairdriers.
Now kettles, I don't get. I would have thought most kettles were pretty efficient as it's such a simple application and all that would happen if they cut the rating would be longer boiling times.
REALIST123 said:
I have little problem with the EU fkwits tampering like this. It stops them interfering in things that matter.
Having said that, Vacuums clearly don't need massive motors unless they're badly designed so maybe it's not that bad a thing, though probably hardly noticeable in the scheme of things. Same with hairdriers.
Now kettles, I don't get. I would have thought most kettles were pretty efficient as it's such a simple application and all that would happen if they cut the rating would be longer boiling times.
yupkwits tampering like this. It stops them interfering in things that matter.Having said that, Vacuums clearly don't need massive motors unless they're badly designed so maybe it's not that bad a thing, though probably hardly noticeable in the scheme of things. Same with hairdriers.
Now kettles, I don't get. I would have thought most kettles were pretty efficient as it's such a simple application and all that would happen if they cut the rating would be longer boiling times.
and the longer the boil time, the more total energy used (as you then have to add up the heat losses over the increased time)
REALIST123 said:
Having said that, Vacuums clearly don't need massive motors unless they're badly designed so maybe it's not that bad a thing, though probably hardly noticeable in the scheme of things. Same with hairdriers.
Now kettles, I don't get. I would have thought most kettles were pretty efficient as it's such a simple application and all that would happen if they cut the rating would be longer boiling times.
Your point about the kettle is exactly the same with the hairdryer and the vacuum. Higher power appliances are nor less efficient, as they are just faster.Now kettles, I don't get. I would have thought most kettles were pretty efficient as it's such a simple application and all that would happen if they cut the rating would be longer boiling times.
If you have a 300W hair dryer, you will sit there for ages instead of blasting your hair dry in seconds with a 1500W one.
And as I said above. Assuming global warming wasn't a fake scare, which it is, this won't make any difference anyway.
beko1987 said:
I welcome this ruling (as a vacuum cleaner collector)
The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have ste filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.
Just wondering if you've measured the load. I'm assuming the manufacturers are conning us into thinking we will get a better clean from a more powerful machine therefore wondering if the stated power is accurate.The problem with modern 2000w+ machines is they have s
te filtration. Most of the 'cyclonic' machines (that are not dyson) have a pleated filter firectly in the airflow. This clogs up fast, since the cyclone systems used are as good as they can get it without infringing the many many patents filed by Dyson, who do sue regularly.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff