Options

EU to change Vacuum cleaners power output!

technopawtechnopaw Posts: 61
Forum Member
Of all the bloody things you've heard this week, this has to be the most ridiculous one yet. Have a read here , but basically the EU will ban the production of vacuums more powerful than 1600w and in 2017 you will only be able to buy vacuums with a power of 900w!

I have a 1200w, it was a cheap and cheerful brand, it just about does the job a 900w vacuum is going to be pants. When do we get to vote to leave the EU?>:(
«1

Comments

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,279
    Forum Member
  • Options
    TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ah completely pointless, ineffective regulations with the aim of addressing climate change.
  • Options
    shackfanshackfan Posts: 15,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If ever there was a reason to leave the EU, that is it. What a bunch of meddling w*nkers.
  • Options
    technopawtechnopaw Posts: 61
    Forum Member
    Rowdy wrote: »

    ;-) didn't see that one, still helps get the word out to fellow tidy peeps!:)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,279
    Forum Member
    technopaw wrote: »
    ;-) didn't see that one, still helps get the word out to fellow tidy peeps!:)
    :) Actually, I'm surprised no-one's come out with the "it-was-only-gathering-dust" joke yet...
  • Options
    tiacattiacat Posts: 22,521
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was just going to put a thread on about this when the site closed down.

    Quite simply, if ever there was a case for outrage and sad faces this is it.

    Forget children getting excluded for cheddars, people getting the wrong hair cuts, people getting prosecuted for school absence with terminal illnesses, wheelie bins or whatever. THIS is a genuine issue.

    Since I saw this earlier, we have decided to get 2 new hoovers.

    Both mine are Miele cat and dog. I wouldnt have anything else. Both are 2000w, again I wouldnt have anything else. One of them is nearly 20 years old and probably on its last legs but I wasnt going to replace it yet as this is the upstairs hoover. The newer one, is about 5 years old.

    No way am I going to be lumbered with only getting a 900w hoover when both of those actually need replacing.
  • Options
    elliecatelliecat Posts: 9,890
    Forum Member
    They say Henry will be banned by 2017:o Luckily they last a lifetime, screw you EU>:(
  • Options
    NilremNilrem Posts: 6,940
    Forum Member
    IIRC the reasoning behind it is something along the lines of the actual power used by many vacuums is completely separate from how well they suck, with some of the modern 2000w units not having any better suction than some of the old 500watt ones.

    People went for the higher number as "high is better", so the manufacturers started using less efficient/cheaper designs that used more power.

    IIRC Dyson aren't happy about the way the suction is rated under the new rules either, because as they (rightly) point out doing suction tests with cleaners that have a new bag/filter and only doing the tests at that point is very misleading in terms of performance, as most cleaners lose a significant amount of their suck within about 15-30 minutes of being used as the bags and filters start to clock up.
  • Options
    SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    Who would have thought such a routine household chore can control the climate of the planet. Will me having a VC that sucks up bugger all offset China's industrial emissions for example? Millions of years of global climate fluctuation influenced by people trying to vacuum up cat hairs?

    Sods law now dictates my 2200w will break down any minute.
  • Options
    jonmorrisjonmorris Posts: 21,778
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But it all adds up. And even the Chinese are trying to consume less energy as it's cheaper.
  • Options
    RandomSallyRandomSally Posts: 7,072
    Forum Member
    elliecat wrote: »
    They say Henry will be banned by 2017:o Luckily they last a lifetime, screw you EU>:(

    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
  • Options
    zx50zx50 Posts: 91,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    technopaw wrote: »
    Of all the bloody things you've heard this week, this has to be the most ridiculous one yet. Have a read here , but basically the EU will ban the production of vacuums more powerful than 1600w and in 2017 you will only be able to buy vacuums with a power of 900w!

    I have a 1200w, it was a cheap and cheerful brand, it just about does the job a 900w vacuum is going to be pants. When do we get to vote to leave the EU?>:(

    The EU have too much control over what happens in this nation. They seem to be sticking their noses into our business too much lately. I'd never even heard of the bloody EU back in 2006. I sometimes wonder if some power has been given to them in the last four years in some sort of a deal and this is why they can interfere in what happens over here.
  • Options
    tiacattiacat Posts: 22,521
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nilrem wrote: »
    IIRC the reasoning behind it is something along the lines of the actual power used by many vacuums is completely separate from how well they suck, with some of the modern 2000w units not having any better suction than some of the old 500watt ones.

    People went for the higher number as "high is better", so the manufacturers started using less efficient/cheaper designs that used more power.

    IIRC Dyson aren't happy about the way the suction is rated under the new rules either, because as they (rightly) point out doing suction tests with cleaners that have a new bag/filter and only doing the tests at that point is very misleading in terms of performance, as most cleaners lose a significant amount of their suck within about 15-30 minutes of being used as the bags and filters start to clock up.

    Well as I said on the other thread to this, Dyson does not really come up as often as other makes (Miele for example) in best buy or good reviews. In addition the cleaners that come out tops have very high wattage, usually around the 2000w mark. Both my hoovers are Miele and have 2000w.
  • Options
    MoggioMoggio Posts: 4,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Reducing the amount of energy we use! What a horror!
  • Options
    tiacattiacat Posts: 22,521
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Moggio wrote: »
    Reducing the amount of energy we use! What a horror!

    Except it wont, which is more of a horror
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Moggio wrote: »
    Reducing the amount of energy we use! What a horror!

    Have you done any research into the topic? Doesn't sound like it. If so, you'd know that these EUSSR vacuum cleaners will use more energy as you have to hoover for longer.

    It's a bit like the EUSSR toilets we have nowadays. You often have to flush them two times at least. They are meant to be water saving but they end up using more water.

    #EUSSRyoucouldntmakeitup.
  • Options
    tiacattiacat Posts: 22,521
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Have you done any research into the topic? Doesn't sound like it. If so, you'd know that these EUSSR vacuum cleaners will use more energy as you have to hoover for longer.

    It's a bit like the EUSSR toilets we have nowadays. You often have to flush them two times at least. They are meant to be water saving but they end up using more water.

    #EUSSRyoucouldntmakeitup.

    The toilets at work are like this, they just spend the day with loo roll down them because it never flushes away.
  • Options
    skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jonmorris wrote: »
    But it all adds up. And even the Chinese are trying to consume less energy as it's cheaper.

    But if you have a less powerful hoover you may end up hovering for longer so its no cheaper and no energy saving, its like the new standard of toilets with less water capacity, old toilets you flushed once these ones you often have to flush more than once so actually use more water.
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    But if you have a less powerful hoover you may end up hovering for longer so its no cheaper and no energy saving, its like the new standard of toilets with less water capacity, old toilets you flushed once these ones you often have to flush more than once so actually use more water.

    Err I said this already.
  • Options
    jonmorrisjonmorris Posts: 21,778
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    But if you have a less powerful hoover you may end up hovering for longer so its no cheaper and no energy saving, its like the new standard of toilets with less water capacity, old toilets you flushed once these ones you often have to flush more than once so actually use more water.

    You might hoover for longer, but plenty of people have pointed out that the power isn't the perfect measure of what makes a good vacuum cleaner.

    And if you did have to hoover a bit longer, how much longer? Enough to wipe out the energy saving? Has anyone done such testing, or are we just making assumptions that it will take twice as long and therefore be exactly the same cost.

    As for toilets, when you can control the water you use (small flush or large flush) then you can save water. Surely you don't always need to use lots of water? Again, in the long run you're saving water - or should be.

    Perhaps we need more intelligent toilets that can sense the waste that needs to be flushed and use the exact amount of water? You'd not even need to fill them up as they could just take the water needed from a mains feed.
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jonmorris wrote: »
    You might hoover for longer, but plenty of people have pointed out that the power isn't the perfect measure of what makes a good vacuum cleaner.

    And if you did have to hoover a bit longer, how much longer? Enough to wipe out the energy saving? Has anyone done such testing, or are we just making assumptions that it will take twice as long and therefore be exactly the same cost.

    As for toilets, when you can control the water you use (small flush or large flush) then you can save water. Surely you don't always need to use lots of water? Again, in the long run you're saving water - or should be.

    Perhaps we need more intelligent toilets that can sense the waste that needs to be flushed and use the exact amount of water? You'd not even need to fill them up as they could just take the water needed from a mains feed.

    Intelligence and the EUSSR are not two words that belong in the same sentence.
  • Options
    grumpyscotgrumpyscot Posts: 11,354
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    All I can say is it's about time David Cameron grew a set of balls and told the EU where to go. Instead of banning hoovers, they should ban the movement of the EU HQ every few weeks - it costs many millions of Euros each time and burns up more energy in the form of removal vans and cars that a bloody hoover does.
  • Options
    D_Mcd4D_Mcd4 Posts: 10,438
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This is awful. First light bulbs now hoovers.
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grumpyscot wrote: »
    All I can say is it's about time David Cameron grew a set of balls and told the EU where to go. Instead of banning hoovers, they should ban the movement of the EU HQ every few weeks - it costs many millions of Euros each time and burns up more energy in the form of removal vans and cars that a bloody hoover does.

    The reason they make move is down to French bloody mindedness. They insist on having an EU hub in France.
  • Options
    Rich_LRich_L Posts: 6,110
    Forum Member
    Well, that sucks.
Sign In or Register to comment.