Are the new hoovers all sh!te?

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

But LED's give off a horrible blue tone.

Unless you get the really cheap ones, or chose that hue, they don't. You can get them as warm or as cold as you want.

You can't mention the word Dyson here without a torrent of peasants appearing to bleat about their blasted Henrys. We get it, you're happy with ugly appliances to match your ugly life. Pipe down.

Nobelium wrote: »

We had a dyson, looks cool, but lasted no time, before failing apart. All image no substance. Got a Henry and never looked back, it's the old tried and tested nilfisk style design, whereas the new nilfisk are shyte.

No idea how you managed to destroy it in no time but to say it's all image and no substance is nonsense.

Your Henry is durable. Fair enough. Kust because its ugly and durable doesn't make it better at what it's supposed to do.

The new vacuum cleaners absolutely suck.

This extract from an Amazon review sums up the Nilfisk GM80. The one I have is 1200 watts, proving that power consumption is not the most important factor.

Don't be fooled by the 1100w power compared to some manufacturers that offer 2000w or even 3000w of power, it's not about motor power it's all about how much suction comes out the end of the nozzle...this beauty will swallow a nearby pet without even blinking.

The secret to it's power is the massive filter, it's huge almost the same size as the whole machine. Have yourself a massive wattage motor with a small filter and suction will soon be reduced. That guy that sells you that famous plastic see-through cyclonic vacuum and tells you they never lose suction is telling porkies. If you look at your nearest Henry or similar french company shaped vacuum, where do you think they stole their ideas from...you guessed it...this puppy...but compared to this Nilfisk, they are mere toys.

lawred2 wrote: »

Serious lack of knowledge or understanding there

Absolutely not.... It's based on experience of trying many variations over the years. The tech is getting better now, but I have not yet found a low wattage bulb that has lasted nearly as long as advertised, and until quite recently the light levels were abysmal.

I have paid high prices for inferior low wattage product over the years and think that the consumer, as always, was made to pay the price to force manufacturers to develop new products.

I know people will come back with their better performance experience, but that is mine. I fully support more efficient use of energy, but I firmly believe that the commercial imperative in the end is to force the consumer to ultimately pay more for the less energy they are using. Likewise with the 'recycle industry' - it's not for the good of the planet that these people are in business. The recycle and alternative energy industries are full of wasteful and ineffective practices that no government cares about as long as they can put a positive spin out about at least doing something.

They need to do much better and stop piling all the responsibility and costs on the end user. Get ready for the great carbon tax increase scam, coming your way soon where you will be taxed for using carbon based energy while there is very little effort put into providing viable alternatives for you to use. What about trying some incentives for a change?

Hip, hip horray.. we just declared a climate emergency in Ireland (well, 6 TD's did anyway) .... some cheek with our track record on not meeting our agreed targets on the Paris accord. Still, we will tax our citizens to the hilt and happily implement that part of the agreement anyway.

Will any other brand than Hoover ever achieve what it managed, actually lending it's name to the vacuuming of floors and carpets ?

Dysoning or Nilfisking a carpet sounds weird compared to Hoovering.

Ger Roe wrote: »

Absolutely not.... It's based on experience of trying many variations over the years. The tech is getting better now, but I have not yet found a low wattage bulb that has lasted nearly as long as advertised, and until quite recently the light levels were abysmal.

I have paid high prices for inferior low wattage product over the years and think that the consumer, as always, was made to pay the price to force manufacturers to develop new products.

I know people will come back with their better performance experience, but that is mine. I fully support more efficient use of energy, but I firmly believe that the commercial imperative in the end is to force the consumer to ultimately pay more for the less energy they are using. Likewise with the 'recycle industry' - it's not for the good of the planet that these people are in business. The recycle and alternative energy industries are full of wasteful and ineffective practices that no government cares about as long as they can put a positive spin out about at least doing something.

They need to do much better and stop piling all the responsibility and costs on the end user. Get ready for the great carbon tax increase scam, coming your way soon where you will be taxed for using carbon based energy while there is very little effort put into providing viable alternatives for you to use. What about trying some incentives for a change?

Hip, hip horray.. we just declared a climate emergency in Ireland (well, 6 TD's did anyway) .... some cheek with our track record on not meeting our agreed targets on the Paris accord. Still, we will tax our citizens to the hilt and happily implement that part of the agreement anyway.

What kind of bulbs are you buying? Replaced all the bulbs in my house with leds from city electrical factors if anything the ones I got for bedside lamps were too bright had to swap them out for cooler ones.