Monday, December 18, 2006

Vacuums: Bags or Filters?

The great thing about Ezzie's blog is that it's kind of like a hang out for everyone and any conversation is fair game. With that in mind, I would like to talk to you about a touchy subject. Yes, you guessed it. Vacuums. Till now, we have had a Dirt Devil that has the old bags in it. It broke recently, and we bought a new Eureka, but this time, instead of the bags, it has the filter technology. Apparently, the filters are all the rage now and most vacuums only use the filters. The only thing people have to say about the filter vacuums is that you don't have to worry about those "messy" bags anymore. uhhhh, ok. Here is my opinion on the whole stupid matter:

With a bag, I would vacumm till it gets full or almost full, take out the bag and toss it. With the filter vacuums, its a whole shpeal. If I want the filter itself to remain somewhat clean, then I have to empty out the storage cup (with the dust) each time. And when you do, dust always seems to rise up after hitting the trash and sometimes, it even falls to the floor. Then I have to go and shake off the dust that has accumitlated on the filter. And not only that, the instruction manual recommends that you can even rinse the filter in some warm water, but you have to let it dry before using it again. Lets not forget about the cost. An extra filter costs $15.00 each. Bags on the other hand, are about $5.00 for, IIRC, 4 bags. And I am assuming you have to change filters about the same amount of time you would change a bag.

So I ask you, what have I saved? Nothing. I haven't saved money with the filters nor time with the clean up. How does this sort of technology get past the consumer and ends up dominating the market? Why re-invent the wheel. And whats even more nutts, is the people that shell out $500 on a dyson. Those things are huge and heavy.

Am I wrong here? What do you guys prefer?


  1. ->What do you guys prefer?


  2. Check out the Bissell. There are different filters, the main one just needs washed. In over a year, I've never had to replace a filter.

    No bags is a beracha with kids. With all the food that gets on the floor here, we'd be replacing bags every month. And, bags are pricy (I haven't seen 4 for 5 bucks). Plus, it is another thing to have to shop for. Sorry, but count me out. :) :)

  3. We have an old Hoover and I replace the "Z" type bag every few weeks (food particles, etc). I bought 2 Z-bags at the local hardware store for $1.47, so the cost is not a major issue in this case.
    I recently picked up a "dust-buster" which does use a filter but it has not proven to be that much of a pain until now

  4. The bagless vacuum I have has a filter that you just wash out in the sink. I empty the container into the outside trash (the trick for avoiding releasing dust back into your house) and rinse the filter for a minute or so. I probably need to do that one every two-three weeks. To me, it's definitely worth not having to pay for or remember to buy vacuum bags. I think bagless vacuums also do a better job of picking up dirt in the first place.

  5. We had an Oreck for about 8 years and were very happy with it.

  6. for some reasons, our vacuums break down after a year.

    Fern r, I also think the bagless does a better job (so far) at picking up, but the hassle of cleaning and empting, defeats the purpose for me of just vacuuming, and putting the vacuum back in the closet. Chic Chac. I think our bags lasted for a couple of months.