Nilfisk: A warning and kudos.
~misfit~
Long version:
I bought a Nilfisk Astral Comet GM 170 at the end of December. It looks like
a nice machine. It has a vortex filter towards the top of the pipe that
catches 80% of the dust so you don't have to replace the bag so often, a big
plus with Nilfisk as their bags are expensive. It is clear plastic and you
just unscrew it and empty it whenever it gets a bunch of 'dust' in it. It
certainly wasn't the cheapest cleaner in the shop but I've had good
experiences with Nilfisk.
Well, my machine started to smell hot the second or third time it was used
and then stopped. On investigation (I wasn't using it at the time) the top
surface was too hot to touch. I left it 15 minutes and opened the top up and
the motor was really hot. I took it back to Hill and Stewart who rang
Nilfisk (I had to wait nearly an hour until they got to the right person)
and they said they would replace it and I was given one from their stock.
Exactly the same thing happened with the second one. I figured maybe it was
getting hot because there wasn't enough air going through it to cool it but
that didn't appear to be the case, the thing was still sucking well and air
was flowing freely. When it started getting hot my fiance asked should she
turn it off and let it cool down. I told her no, carry on, if it was going
to fail I wanted it to do it while it was still new, not baby it and have it
crap out later. It too stopped working, thermal cut-out I assume.
Around this time I did a web search for it and couldn't find reference to
that model outside NZ. Maybe it's sold elsewhere under a different name but
going by my experience with it I doubt it.
I took it back to Hill and Stewart yet again and told them the story and
asked if anyone else had bought one back with similar problems. They said
no, they'd sold a lot and no problems for anyone else. They rang Nilfisk
again and this time were told to send the faulty unit back and that Nilfisk
would send them a new one out of a different batch, maybe the batch was bad.
First they tried to get me to take a different model as a replacement but I
wanted the vortex filter, it will vastly reduce ongoing costs.
Well, the very first time we used the new one it started to smell hot after
five minutes/one room. The fiancee let it cool down between rooms and got
the house done. That is three machines cooked themselves in as many months.
I rang Nilfisk myself this time and spoke to the rep for the North Island.
She told me that they'd had problems with that model saying that a
percentage had failed, she said "around 50 units". She said it was due to a
restriction in the airflow due to the vortex fitler which resulted in the
motor overheating. (However, as I said, I checked and there seemed to be
plenty of air flowing through all the machines when they failed, more than
enough to carry away the heat. Enough so that the "bag full" light hadn't
come on. I told her that I'd personally had three of those 50 units. She
offered me a different model as a replacement. I asked if it had the vortex
filter as that is what attracted me to the machine in the first place. She
said no, at the moment the only model they have available with the vortex
filter is the GM 170. I told her I wanted one with a vortex filter, that was
the selling-point for me and she said she'd ring me back.
Less than an hour later I got a call saying that there was a new model
coming out to replace the GM 170 with a re-designed vortex filter but they
didn't have shipping units yet. They do however have a few evaluation units
at head office and would I be happy with one of those? They are essentially
the same as the 170, same "price-point", same wattage, takes the same
dust-bags etc. Just a different design vortex filter. I agreed to having one
of those and should get it in two days. (She was out of the office and
talking to me from a cell phone).
Personally I hope the new model has a different motor as I think that's
where the problem lies, not in the filter. (Or surely the 'bag full' light
would have come on if there was insufficient air flow through the motor to
cool it?)
So, kudos to Nilfisk for owning the problem. What worries me though is when
a rep volunteers the information that "about 50" have failed I instantly
think "about 250". Also, if they are having a significant failure rate with
these machines why are they still on sale?
Just thought I'd let readers of this group know so they could avoid this
particular model. However I still believe that Nilfisk are a good brand and
make good machines, it just seems this one was a lemon. Makes you wonder
though, if three out of three machines failed for me (and yes, the voltage
of the mains at my house is well within spec) within less than two hours of
use, (15 minutes in the case of the third if it hadn't been turned off when
it got hot), how much testing is being done on them? It begs the question,
as I couldn't find reference to them selling overseas, has NZ been used as a
dumping-ground for a faulty model?
Fingers crossed for the new machine, I'm getting sick of taking vacuum
cleaners back to the shop.
--
~misfit~
Rider
"~misfit~" <misfi...@hooya.co.nz> wrote in message
news:422d2...@x-privat.org...
Maybe they'd only sold 55 units total ... that wouldnt be a good average
LoL
Rider
~misfit~
> "~misfit~" <misfi...@hooya.co.nz> wrote in message
<snip>
>> I rang Nilfisk myself this time and spoke to the rep for the North
>> Island. She told me that they'd had problems with that model saying
>> that a percentage had failed, she said "around 50 units".
>
> Maybe they'd only sold 55 units total ... that wouldnt be a good
> average
Maybe I should have got the message when both times I had the machine
replaced they asked me if I would like a different model.
--
~misfit~
EMB
> Maybe I should have got the message when both times I had the machine
> replaced they asked me if I would like a different model.
Any chance you'd be intereseted in a cheap AMD CPU?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/04/amd_suspect_cpu_seizure/
Or a Maxtor hard drive?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/07/fake_maxtor_hdds/
Or maybe even a Segway - mate of mine paid through the nose to hire one
(just for the geek value). What an over-rated POS - neat concept that
totally fails to live up to it's promise.
--
EMB
Don Hills
The Dyson brand cleaners use "cyclonic" filters as their only dust
catcher. I remember Consumer testing them and noting that although they
didn't clog, they didn't have very good suction. It may be that the Nilfisk
cyclonic pre-filter offers too much obstruction for the motor unit, which
may have been designed to work without such a filter. They may well have
modified the motor/blower suction characteristics on the new model to
compensate, so hopefully it won't have the same problem.
As you pointed out, machines with bags are easy to empty but, of course, you
need to buy bags. You can buy machines that don't need bags, but then you
have the hassle of cleaning the cloth filter bag when you empty them. I
found a way to make this process a lot easier: New World supermarkets sell
their own house brand (PAM's) cleaning cloths based on the "Chux multi
cloths". (The Chux cloths have small perforations in them which make them
unsuitable as filters.) I drape one of these over the filter before putting
the machine back together, then trim off the excess. When emptying later,
almost all of the dust has been trapped by the cleaning cloth and it can be
dropped straight in the bin.
I got the idea originally from my wet/dry workshop cleaner, which has a foam
filter for "wet" use and a disposable cloth filter over the foam filter for
"dry" use. I couldn't get any more cloth filters and found that the Pam's
cloths were a close match in thickness and texture. They proved to work
fine, so I extended the idea to my "house" vacuum cleaners.
--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Microsoft advertisement on the box for Windows 2.11 for 286
~misfit~
> A couple of comments:
>
> The Dyson brand cleaners use "cyclonic" filters as their only dust
> catcher. I remember Consumer testing them and noting that although
> they didn't clog, they didn't have very good suction. It may be that
> the Nilfisk cyclonic pre-filter offers too much obstruction for the
> motor unit, which may have been designed to work without such a
> filter. They may well have modified the motor/blower suction
> characteristics on the new model to compensate, so hopefully it won't
> have the same problem.
Hopefully. This machine had plenty suck, maybe just not enough? Although if
it needs more airflow than that to remove waste heat then the motor can't be
very efficient. I still maintain that the motor was the problem. I'm sure I
could put my old Electrolux's (Which still sucks well but the hose fitting
on the front of the thing has broken one too many times, it is 20 years old
after all) hose in a loop, exhuast to inlet, and run it for an hour and it
wouldn't overheat. That last machine, the motor got too hot to touch in less
than 10 minutes of use *from new*.
> As you pointed out, machines with bags are easy to empty but, of
> course, you need to buy bags.
Nilfisk don't allow third-parties to manufacture dust bags for their
machines. You can't buy bags for them from the supermarket, you have to go
to a Nilfisk dealer and pay through the nose. Hence my desire for a cyclonic
filter to reduce the on-going cost of bags.
> You can buy machines that don't need
> bags, but then you have the hassle of cleaning the cloth filter bag
Yes, I was offered such a machine by Nilfisk but I suffer from allergic
rhinitis so shaking out a cloth bag isn't really feasible for me. (I've had
the standard allergy test and they have been unable to pinpoint the allergen
dammit! I have to use a spray twice daily).
> when you empty them. I found a way to make this process a lot easier:
> New World supermarkets sell their own house brand (PAM's) cleaning
> cloths based on the "Chux multi cloths". (The Chux cloths have small
> perforations in them which make them unsuitable as filters.) I drape
> one of these over the filter before putting the machine back
> together, then trim off the excess. When emptying later, almost all
> of the dust has been trapped by the cleaning cloth and it can be
> dropped straight in the bin.
I don't understand. This isn't a disposable-bag machine? How could I use
this method? Sounds innovative, well done.
> I got the idea originally from my wet/dry workshop cleaner, which has
> a foam filter for "wet" use and a disposable cloth filter over the
> foam filter for "dry" use. I couldn't get any more cloth filters and
> found that the Pam's cloths were a close match in thickness and
> texture. They proved to work fine, so I extended the idea to my
> "house" vacuum cleaners.
Well done.
Cheers Don,
--
~misfit~
Don Hills
>
>I don't understand. This isn't a disposable-bag machine? How could I use
>this method? Sounds innovative, well done.
It's designed rather like a "dustbuster" cordless vacuum cleaner, the dust
compartment forms the front half of the case with the filter pressed into
the end so that it is sandwiched between the dust compartment and the motor.
You unclip the case, lift the filter out and pour the dust into the bin. As
you point out, most of the dust clings to the filter and it has to be shaken
off, causing clouds of dust. I found that a Pam's Multi Cloth (10 to a pack,
a couple of dollars) cut in half covers the cloth filter with a little to
spare. (I use a full size one in the wet/dry canister cleaner.) You need to
look carefully when buying them, make sure they're "plain", sometimes
they're perforated like the Chux ones.
I place the cloth over the filter and press the filter assembly into the
dust compartment, then if I'm feeling tidy I cut the excess cloth off with
scissors. On subsequent emptying I just loosen the cloth and it drops, with
its layer of dust, into the bin leaving the filter almost clean.
The other thing I've done to make it easy was to find a couple more of the
same models of cleaner at the local recycling centre for $3 each. I salvaged
the dust containers and filters, and I keep them ready so that if a cleaner
fills up half way through the job I just change the dust container and carry
on. I can then leave the emptying job until a convenient time, which makes
it easier to gear up with dust mask etc.
I can't see how you'd apply the cloth to a bagged machine, nor would you
have to as the bag holds the dust. As you point out, it's the cost of the
bag which is the problem. I originally went "bagless" to avoid the forced
obsolescence when bags become hard / impossible to get. It would be useful
if manufacturers agreed on a range of standard bags and designed their
cleaners for them, but vacuum cleaners are traditionally a long-lived
appliance and they wouldn't get the turnover they'd like.
~misfit~
Thanks for the explaination Don, great thinking.
More on my adventure with Nilfisk:
Today I got a call to pick up my new vacuum cleaner. I went to get it,
boxed, and got it home to discover a *very* light-weight, plasticy-feeling
disposable-type cleaner that you'd get from the warehouse for $99. However,
it did have a redisigned cyclone filter on the tube.
There is only one difference (functional) between the two cyclone filters.
They are both around 25cm high and 12cm in diameter clear plastic and is
parallel to the pipe. Air is introduced at the top at a tangent and spins
around the chamber. Gravity and the direction of the incoming air force
particulate matter to the bootom and in the top centre there is a perforated
cyinder about 5cm in diameter and extending 10cm into the casing where the
air exits the pre-filter and continues up the pipe. The only functional
difference between the two is the first one had material similar to a coffee
filter covereing the internal cylinder, the second one is a solid plastic
tube, perforated with a multitude of approximately 1mm holes. (Both of these
parts are removable for cleaning/unblocking and could therefore have been
simply swapped) This obviously causes less restrictions on the airflow.
(There are other differences, the pipe doesn't have click-lock mechanisms
where it comes apart like the first one did, it's all cheaper, push-together
taper fit joins. It feels a lot cheaper)
What is interesting though is that they didn't fit this new filter to the
same body as the old one, it's on one of their cheaper "Sprint Plus"
cleaners. (Their biggest-selling model as the rep informed me on the phone)
It has lower wattage and doesn't include "hepa filtration", an important
consideration for me and my allergic rhinitis.
This supports my theory that it wasn't just the cyclone filter that was at
fault with the Astral Comet GM 170 at all otherwise they would have fitted
the new filter to the same body right? Not this cheap, lightweight,
screaming little junker they gave me.
I rang them again, told them of my dissatisfaction with the replacement,
explained that I wouldn't have bought thins cleaner if it was in the shop
and the rep said she'll ring me back. I got a call a few hours later saying
the best they can do is if I go to Hill and Stewart tomorrow (She'd been
speaking with the manager there), take the cleaner back and pay a further
$40 cash I can have the bottom of the range model of there next range up.
Twice the size dust bag, Hepa 14 filtration instead of Hepa 10 on the Comet,
55db instead of (seemingly) 75db of the Sprint and five year warranty
instead of the two year warranty that the other two machines had. I'm told
the price difference is actually considerably more than $40 but that is the
difference between what I paid and cost for one of these other machines.
I didn't get a chance to say all that I wanted to say, that I think NZ is
being used as a dumping-ground for these Astral Comets as why do they keep
insisting that it's the pre-filter causing the failures of the Comet's when
the only functional part that has changed with the new pre-filter is
removable and interchangable with the old, fine-mesh unit? Why remove the
whole thing from the market when a 50 cent bit of plastic is all the
difference between the two?
I'll have a look at the machine they're offering me tomorrow. The $40 is
going to be difficult as I paid my Orcon bill ($49.95) yesterday and my
prescriptions after my doctor's visit today cost me $44.95, doctors visit
$30. The invalid's benefit doesn't allow much leeway for unexpected
expenditure. Also, my finacee didn't think much of that range of machines as
they are physically bigger/heavier/more unwieldy and she is very small and
doesn't like lugging a big lump around the house. However, I can see how
they have to be bigger if they are quieter and the dust bag is twice the
size (hence close to half the cost for consumables). However, the much finer
hepa filter may be more expensive to replace and will probably need
replacing more often and cost more.
LOL, nothing ever seems to go smoothly for me. If there's a lemon to be
bought, I'll buy it. I hope it goes well tomorrow.
Cheers,
--
~misfit~
PC
"Don Hills" <dmh...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FBlLCtga...@attglobal.net...
Ah but then you wouldn't be locked into buying 'proprietry' parts for your
Vacumn Cleaner (Drill/Car/PC/whatever)
That just couldn't do!
The problem is these dumb dickheads can't see reducing the price to an
'affordable' level will give them more dollars in their pocket at the end of
the day because many more people can afford to buy their parts.
If you want an example just look at the Warehouse. Prior to their arrival
everything sold by the big Retailers was priced on the 'what the market will
stand' principal i.e. jack the price up till sales almost stop, but still
make lots of margin on each sale, low inventory and product management
costs.
Example: buy for $1 price out at $8, hey I've made 700% profit on my $1
investment. Sell 1 a month, make $84 per year.
Along comes the Warehouse 'stack it high, price it at cost plus a small
margin' suddenly everyone can afford one, profits way better than the 'price
the market will stand' model
Example: Buy for $1 price out at $3, 200% profit on $1 investment. Now
because a lot more can afford one sell 50 per year i.e. make $100 per year
Sure you have higher restocking costs, but then you're not paying wages to
the salesdoids necessary with the other model to 'push' their 'expensive'
product.
</Rant for day>
<Snip>
Adamski
>It has lower wattage and doesn't include "hepa filtration", an important
>consideration for me and my allergic rhinitis.
On a slightly different note - have you tried a long course of
echinacea for this?
Last place I worked at introduced a really cr*p air-conditioning
system and just about all of 150 employees got the so-called
"perennial rhinitis" within days.
I was told to try taking the stuff (in drops - takes like stagnant
vase water) religiously for a few months. Though dubious, I soon
became the only one at work with a clear nose! - Not a mean feat, if
you could see the size of it <ggggg>.
Adam.
Rider
Ever the optimist eh
LoL