Does your vacuum cleaner suck too much?

That’s very negative, Malcolm. Of course products have to be tested under standard conditions for meaningful comparison. Under these conditions the motor is expected to operate for a minimum of 500 hours and how long individual ones last will depend on how the cleaners are used and also on luck.

I don’t know why the EU chose to restrict the power of vacuum cleaner motors but you have to start somewhere and when some cleaners are a nuisance because of too much suction – the original topic of this Conversation – why not? With the exception of Dyson, vacuum motors have not changed much in design in our lifetimes. We are seeing more efficient motors in many products, though much of this is driven by the need for more efficient motors for battery-operated products.

Yes we could save more energy by changing car design but I don’t see that as a reason for not having more efficient vacuum cleaners and other household products. Criticism of the amount of power that products use on ‘standby’ has led to less wasteful products.

Longer guarantees will help get rid of third-rate products and push up quality. We cannot afford to carry on generating mountains of waste household goods that have failed after a short life.

🙁

Two down votes! How bizarre. I am not suggesting that three would be better though. : ) Perhaps it is the “Very negative” starting sentence. I have not voted BTW.

Vacuum cleaners are not the first item as washing machines and ovens I think have already been dealt with. That it has been done in an opaque way is not a good thing.

Overall it should be self-evident that every activity that creates heat is probably not great for the future of mankind so minimising consumption or equally making more efficient use have to be good policies.

Which? in it’s own way has been poor in highlighting and taking action on housing and energy loss. Essentially with over 0.7m subscribers it might have been effective in making real case studies and educating people on achieving efficient dwellings. Campaigning on energy costs in a global energy system is verging on the futile when more effectively publicising the solutions to energy use are available. Thus helping people save money in the long term and reducing excess energy production.

It would be good if we could tackle all forms of energy wastage but I don’t see much chance of that happening any time soon. What we have achieved thanks to the EU is vacuum cleaners that use less than half the power of models that have gone before. They still do their job but don’t produce as much heat as a fan heater.

When electric drills and other power tools became popular it became common to use the power consumption in marketing. I can remember Black & Decker doing this. The popularity of cordless tools has changed marketing because high power consumption is associated with short running time. It’s not that long since one Dyson handheld vacuum would run for six minutes before needing charged. Now we have many rechargeable vacuum cleaners that will do much better.

I think we do need to explore ways of saving energy and minimising pollution without waiting for comprehensive solutions that may be a long time coming. The increasing popularity of electric cars and buses will help held address the problem of air pollution in built-up areas. We don’t need to wait until we can do the same with HGVs and other diesel-powered transport.

Time to bring back the Ewbank hand-pushed carpet sweeper? No suction, just roller-brush action.

Carpet sweepers are fine for hard surfaces but not brilliant for cleaning carpets, despite the name. Nowadays we have electric carpet sweepers at prices that won’t break the (ew)bank.

Suction was a worthwhile addition but that does not mean that it has to be so powerful that it becomes difficult to move the cleaning head or it lifts the corners of rugs.

Our Miele 1600W Cat and Dog vacuum cleaner, now about 16 years old (probably more) has a selector switch to change the power (suction) to deal with different kinds of surface. Seems to put the user in control. That reminds me, I must order some more dust bags.

The user is not in as much control as it may seem. I have a Miele cleaner without the pet designation and probably earlier because it is rated 1500W. The suction control is marked as variable between 300W and 1500W, though on the lowest setting where it produces very gentle suction it actually consumes over 400W and over 800VA because of the very crude phase control. Appliances with a low power factor distort the AC waveform and create problems for the generating companies. The power consumption is hardly surprising because the motor is an old fashioned design with a commutator, brushes and field windings. Permanent magnet motors are significantly more efficient and the EU power limit for vacuum cleaners makes them essential.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I was referring to suction control, not energy consumption.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Small motors like that always used permanent magnets but it was the development of magnets that could provide a strong field and shaped to make best use of it that they started to appear in larger motors. My 1982 Philips washing machine contained a permanent magnet motor made by Italian company Polymotor and the earliest examples I’ve seen dated from the 1970s, albeit not in domestic products.

The vacuum cleaner speed control is a simple triac circuit of the type you mention and here is an example of one for a Miele cleaner: https://www.partmaster.co.uk/speed-control-module-cyl-s444i/product.pl?pid=309567 I built speed controllers and dimmers when they were very expensive to buy. Happy days. I presume that modern brushless motors use speed controls that do not play as much havoc with the power factor.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Sadly it costs more to make electronic devices these days, when they are mass produced.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I’ve been considering it but my carpet is too thick. I’m heading for 80 and I like a clean home. No pets, few visitors, the question is which do I buy!

Dont buy tower vacuum unless you are built like Hercules

The Which? reviews show give the weight of the cleaners they test and also the amount of force needed to push them over medium and plush-pile carpets.

Maybe the Which? reviewers were thinking about Hercules when they wrote this: “Some vacuum cleaners can be almost impossible to push on their highest setting. We have measured push forces higher than 80 Newtons, which is like picking up an Olympic mens shot put everytime you push the vacuum cleaner over carpet.”

There is an interesting photo of an early machine based on Booth’s patent on this page: https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/British_Vacuum_Cleaner_Co
It does not look very safe, either electrically or mechanically.

The dubious electrical safety of early household products reminds me of this delightful advert relating to vacuum cleaners:

Credit: cracked.com

Ah, Cracked 🙂

I’m a big fan of Roger and all his “Honest Ads”

youtube.com/watch?v=0k7hnjKxI3U&index=16&list=PL_saLI-LH-Vp9cxB3FNJoYXZXRM93UBuf&t=0s

Yes, but I could relate better to English humour. Apparently the vacuum cleaner ad is British.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Hi Fiona,

I’m not an expert on carpets, but I do have a coupled of ruffled or wrinkled areas in my 7 year old living room carpet.

In my case, I am highly confident that they have not been caused by excessive vacuum cleaning.

One occurs between the room’s door and the nearest corner of the room – I think it is the result of the bottom of the door tending to push the carpet in towards the corner. The other area is much smaller and may be caused by a cupboard pushing against the carpet, each time its hinged door is opened.

That said, if your cleaner has recently changed her methods for hoovering the carpet – or anything else that she does in that room, it could explain why you are now seeing wrinkles after 18 years without any. But there might be other explanations too.

I’m not surprised that QC does not pay attention to suction power, Patrick. Even with the current maximum wattage of 900 watts (half that of some cleaners before the EU legislation) it’s not a meaningful measure of how effective a cleaner is. As Which? has reported, lower power has not meant a decrease in the effectiveness of cleaners. Upright cleaners use tend to have high suction but are effective because they combine suction with rotary brushes/beaters. https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/vacuum-cleaners/article/vacuum-cleaners-energy-label-explained-aVMnp9z71EkN

Despite lower power there remains a problem that many vacuum cleaners remain difficult to use on carpets, the focus of this Convo.

In Convos on sustainability some of us have expressed concerns about how cleaners with rechargeable batteries will last. Which? now warns us about ones with no replaceable battery, but before buying a cordless vac I would want to no the cost of a spare battery and will the be available in ten years time. Have Choice and CR looked at this issue?

It’s always interesting to learn how different consumers’ organisations look at similar issues so thanks for your contributions.

Dyson’s distaste for the EU may have had a basis on the very long case in which he objected to the EU measuring suction when the vacuum was empty. He maintained that suction should be measured at half-full. Logically correct.

” Dyson spokeswoman said: “This is welcome news and a win for consumers across Europe. We have been arguing consistently that the Commission committed two legal violations to the detriment of European consumers and Dyson.”

The spokeswoman said that lab tests for energy labels do not reflect “real use”, and said the EU labelling system “flagrantly discriminated against a specific technology” – Dyson’s patented cyclone.

“This benefited traditional, predominantly German, manufacturers who lobbied senior Commission officials. Some manufacturers have actively exploited the regulation by using low motor power when in the test state, but then using technology to increase motor power automatically when the machine fills with dust – thus appearing more efficient,” she added.

“This defeat software allows them to circumvent the spirit of the regulation, which the European Court considers to be acceptable because it complies with the letter of the law.

“In these days of Dieselgate, it is essential consumers can trust what manufacturers say about their products. But the Commission endorsed a measure that allowed Dyson competitors to game the system.
Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

“The legal process has been long, distracting and expensive, with the odds stacked against us. Most businesses simply do not have the resources to fight regulations of this nature. It is appalling that this illegal and fundamentally anti-competitive behaviour has been endorsed for so long.”

The outcome where 60C in a wash is not 60C is another example of manufacturers/EU coming to an agreement that seems to defy logic. However applied to cars and mpg would seem a natural extension to this concept. Just register 60 mph when someone drives at 50mph and we will all be impressed by improved consumption though it will take longer than envisaged for the journey. Splendid solution – no?

That’s interesting. Increasing the motor power as the bag fills makes good sense if you want to maintain suction. Modern bags are better than the ones we had 20 years ago but the suction power of bagged cleaners does reduce as the bag fills. It’s disappointing if some manufacturers have done this to cheat in the tests rather than for sensible reasons.

At one time. Which? would not rate Dyson cleaners as ‘Best Buys’ because of unreliability. Dyson then introduced a five year guarantee on mains-powered cleaners, so I presume they improved their designs. Their motor designs are interesting and more efficient than their competitors. I would not have a bagless cleaner if I was paid to take it, but Dyson have convinced many people that this is the best approach and the major manufacturers all offer bagless cleaners, I believe. That’s marketing.

The EU specifications for cleaning performance do not specify temperatures but cleaning performance. Shorter washes at 60°C have been replaced by longer but equally effective washes lower temperatures. This protects delicate fabrics and saves energy. Manufacturers are removing meaningless temperature figures from their machines and instead indicating the purpose of each program.

I have not managed to find any reports providing evidence of manufacturers using ‘defeat software’ to increase the motor power in their vacuum cleaners. Is there any evidence of this? It implies cheating rather than a simple automatic compensation to increase power as the bag fills to maintain suction.

Nevertheless it does not make much sense to carry out tests only on empty cleaners, as Dyson has pointed out.

I think all my vacuum cleaners are far too old to contain any software controlled components.