I had the pleasure of helping a buddy tear down some of their products for his senior thesis in college (he was a mechanical engineer who needed someone who remotely understood the circuit board side).
His and his professor’s take (who was curious to see the insides and so hovered a little more than he normally would) were that the products have some very solid engineering, creative uses of basic principles (like that Bernoulli shroud you mentioned) but largely invent the problems they solve (a bladeless fan isn’t really that important after we started adding cages).
Sure cyclonic seperation was around, but it wasn’t common in the household, they brought it there and it really is great for filters, it just, doesn’t need to be everything they try to make it be.
This was a while ago so I would absolute believe things have changed since then but they noted some of the “cheap” innards you did were actually at stress points so they would break first instead of the more expensive and harder to replace parts. Stand mixers (I know Kitchenaid) do this as well, they use nylon gear that will strip if the paddle gets stuck instead of burning out the much more expensive motor. Again, this was a while ago so I’d absolute believe they’ve started cheaping out on manufacturing too but without actually seeing (well, having my mechanical engineering buddy see) I couldn’t say.
That being said, if their new vacuum with the conical rollers really works as well as they say and others adopt it I will weep with joy. So…Many…Hair tangles (yes I need to vacuum more regularly, but I’m so sick of cutting the hair off)
elucubra@sopuli.xyz 6 hours ago
The vacuum cleaner I had, floor model, corded, would have been 10-12 years now. I fixed it and proptly sold it. I don’t think it would withstand another teardown without breaking something. I’m not saying the engineering concepts are bad, but they are designed with planned obsolescence, with fragility in mind.
Filter Queen was making home cyclonic vacuum cleaners from 1928. No innovation there.
Bagless vacuums have been around a lot longer too. Bagless vacuums are more convenient at first, but filters will eventually get impossible to clean completely. I have a Bosch 2 in 1 cordless, hand/broom, which I hate cleaning out. With my Kobold I simply replace a paper bag. Clean and fast, and the bags are quite cheap.
The things I’m referring to are not sacrificial parts, like the gears you mention, but parts and shells that don’t need sacrificial parts, quite the opposite.
All in all, there is absolutely no reason for those vacuums to cost 5x the price of equivalent competitors. Does a conical brush justify a 600€ price tag?