SIP dust extractor sucks a bit

[Bobbins]

Hi Everyone,

My first post, after reading lots of your useful comments on here I now have a question which I dont think has been covered before. I've recently bought an SIP 3.0HP Single Bag Dust Extractor - Model 01954. The spec states 2526 m3/hour which seems to be a decent flow rate for the prices of the machine £200. Only I happen to have access to an air flow meter and I measured the air flow (with nothing connected). I measured about 1500 m3/hour - which is clearly nothing like the stated SIP spec. I phoned SIP and the guy in their support centre said there was nothing they could do and I should just send it back if I'm not happy. He actually sounded like he wasn't surprised it wasn't up to spec and wasn't interested in looking into the matter further - as I suggested perhaps SIP have published the wrong figures. I guess all the cheap manufacturers are bigging-up there specs, generally I we all take the stated capacities of certain machines with a pinch of salt, but airflow should be pretty spot on for a brand new unit I think.

So what to do. Send it back? Call trading standards? Put up with it?

Right now I thinking ditch SIP altogether, not impressed with support guy, or product.

Bob.

 

[beech1948]

I would call Trading Standards and launch a complaint.

Alternatives might be to go to a solicitor and see if there could be a case of fraud or whatever they call retail misrepresentation....maybe the solicitor would take the case based on reclaiming his fees from SIP.

I just hate this kind of misrepresentation.

Al

 

[shed9]

To be fair, 1500 m3/h is not bad for £200.

I would also expect most (including high end) manufacturers rated flow rate to be less in real life. I would not realistically expect ANY chip extractor to work at the actual stated flow rate.

Calling trading standards will achieve nothing; they could simply claim the flow rate is that of the motor unit and besides they have offered you the option of returning which in reality is the only option you have given your post.

 

[MMUK]

Stated flow rates are maximum flow rates in ideal (laboratory) conditions. I would imagine SIP have something in their small print to say as such. Still very misleading and very naughty though but it's accepted practise industry wide.

 

[Spindle]

To be fair, 1500 m3/h is not bad for £200.

I would also expect most (including high end) manufacturers rated flow rate to be less in real life. I would not realistically expect ANY chip extractor to work at the actual stated flow rate.

Hi

Interesting response - why would you expect manufacturers not to meet their specs?

I would be asking SIP how they meet the spec, ie, under what conditions it is determined - and under no circumstance would I accept a machine producing what amounts to only 60% of it's advertised performance.

Regards Mick

 

[wizard]

Got rid of all my SIP stuff

 

[shed9]

To be fair, 1500 m3/h is not bad for £200.

I would also expect most (including high end) manufacturers rated flow rate to be less in real life. I would not realistically expect ANY chip extractor to work at the actual stated flow rate.

Hi

Interesting response - why would you expect manufacturers not to meet their specs?

I would be asking SIP how they meet the spec, ie, under what conditions it is determined - and under no circumstance would I accept a machine producing what amounts to only 60% of it's advertised performance.

Regards Mick

Hi Mick

I agree that 60% is not acceptable, however I don't know how Bobbins conducted his tests and how accurate his process and equipment was so can't comment on that percentage.

If I purchased a SIP extractor and I felt or could prove somehow that it was performing at 60% rated flow and SIP thought that was not an issue, I would throw it back, get my money and move on to another brand. Asking SIP how they reached their spec would not achieve anything for me as it wouldn't actually change the flow rate of the unit in question, nor would I put any trust in their other models.

As for expectations, its just a fact that manufacturers use the best stats they can in regards to specifications regardless of real world application; pharmaceuticals do it with drugs, audio equipment manufacturers do it with amps and speakers and hence workshop equipment distributors do it with motor powered tools. I would expect around 25% difference typically.

Lee

Edit: to clarify on the trading standards query, in my opinion and experience they are a toothless and undermanned organisation - I don't think they will care one jot if the flow rate is less than advertised on a Chinese imported vacuum cleaner. As for the suggestion further up of contacting a solicitor over the subjective findings of flow rate for a £200 product - the only person who will win in that scenario will be the solicitor.

 

[beech1948]

i don't think that Trading Standards are toothless at all. Understaffed yes. Choosy about who and what to prosecute yes.

I might agree that using a solicitor for a £200 article is only going to help the lawyer be even more profitable but its the OP's choice and not my or your judgement.

Send it back for a refund is probably the only sensible thing to do so your right BUT we lose because of the generalised misrepresentation by suppliers. I wonder if SIP's Asian suppliers use those numbers ?

I use 2x Record DX4000s and will try to rig up a "manometer" if thats the right name to test pressure draw tomorrow.

Al

 

[shed9]

I might agree that using a solicitor for a £200 article is only going to help the lawyer be even more profitable but its the OP's choice and not my or your judgement.

Wasn't attacking you Al - I wasn't making a judgement, merely commenting on your own suggestion of a viable option to seek legal advice on the basis of a £200 Chinese vacuum cleaner not potentially sucking as much as it should.

I disagree is all.

 

[wallace]

The spec data is achieved under lab conditions with no restrictions and the motor probably on the verge of burning up. Bill Pentz goes into lots of detail on his site