Drying time after a VPI record cleaner?

Hello everyone, I am curious what you all are doing in terms of drying time for your records after you clean them on a VPI vacuum record cleaning machine.  

I am using the VPI model 16.5.  My routine lately is to put the record on the cleaning plater, blast with an air compressor to remove the easy dust, apply 1 step cleaning formula with brush for 1 minute, vacuum for 3 revolutions, flip repeat.  After that, I set the record vertically in a small kitchen dish drying rack made of plastic coated metal.  I can fit 13 records in the rack, all vertical, none touching, and only coming in contact with the rack on the extreme edge of the vinyl, so no contact to the actual grooves.  I then leave them to fully dry out for several hours or overnight.  The thought is, I do not want any liquid that didn't get vacuumed up to remain. (though they look more or less dry to me, I figure it is possible to have some moisture still in there somewhere)

My question is, is this last step necessary?  Do you just put the record back into the sleeve after vacuuming?  Or, if you do use a dish rack like I do, how long to you let them dry?
Records should be dry if it is working right.Sometimes you have to turn the brush a little.
I find that mine are damp when done, so I have been buying and using the drying cloths that Record Spin uses and sells. That completes the drying and if any moisture is present, I don't see it but I assume the time it takes to get the record que'd it is completely dry.
After a full rotation I lift the tube for a second to clear both the tube and the brush.  Then I vacuum one more revolution and the record is dry.   
Wlutke, that is clever, I'm going to give it a try!  So, you leave the vacuum running, and just manually lift the tube off the record?  How long do you feel is the proper length of time to have the tube lifted for this procedure?
if you add another portion of alcohol into solution, it should come out of VPI dry.

You may be using too much fluid on the subsequent records you're cleaning. The brush soaks up the liquid as you go, so squirt less on the record surface.

My NG MiniPro2 gets LPs dry on 2 revs - I am surprised the VPI is leaving fluid behind.  Revolve too much and you introduce static charge.
Mark, I suspect your vacuum tube is not set at the proper angle. I’ve had a 16.5 for several years and the only drying issue is when any cleaning fluid or rinse is splashed onto the label area beyond the end of the vacuum tube. When that happens I use a dry dish towel to blot the label area after I remove the record.

For the drying cycle I note the position of the record relative to a place on the label and flip on the vacuum for two revolutions. After I shut it off there is sufficient vacuum to hold the tube in place for nearly another revolution before it lifts up.

Per VPI the slot in the vacuum tube should be set at about 185 degrees when viewed from the end. If it points straight down (180 degrees) it will not function properly.
Thanks everyone.  To clarify, it doesn't appear that the records are wet after 2 or 3 revolutions of the vacuum cycle.  I was just obsessing about the idea that there may be moisture in the grooves that I cannot necessarily see.  So, for those of you who don't see an issue here, are you replacing the vinyl in the sleeve immediately after vacuuming? 

I’m just pleased to see so many responses to a question about source material, an indicator that it is the music we care most about!

I got my VPI HW-17F precisely because I was not satisfied with the drying abilities of the Nitty Gritty I had previously. It sucked---or rather didn’t, at least, not to my satisfaction. Two revolutions of drying on a VPI is all it takes. I appreciate your concern about any possible remaining humidity on your LP’s, but that should evaporate in the time it takes to remove the LP from the VPI and slide it into it’s sleeve. I’d be more concerned about the amount of dust that may fall onto the LP while in the dish rack!

I have the HW-17. My records come out completely dry after 3 revolutions with the vacuum on. I do only clean one side at a time, right before I play it. Once in a blue moon, I'll notice a drop of liquid on the very edge of the disc if I'm not careful removing the disc and bump it up against the fluid applicator brush. 

I agree with bdp24 that I'd be more concerned about gathering more dust while "drying" than I would about moisture, and I use a new MoFi inner sleeve after clearning - any moisture problems would be apparent in the plastic if the albums didn't get dry, and I've never had a problem. 
bdp24, good point about the dust falling on records in the dish rack, I had thought about that as well.  Perhaps I will modify my method in using the dish rack, and once it is full with 13 records, sleeve the first 6, and continue cleaning.  That is, if I have the gumption to keep going!  I usually get bored and tired of record cleaning by number 13.
Leaving them out for room drying will result in more debris on the clean record in my estimation. The VPI, once you get the wand angle right, should dry them- i like the idea above, about the lift (assuming the vacuum isn't so strong that it pulls the record when you lift). The problem, as wand machine users know, is that over-vacuuming can cause static. I also like to do a rinse step, and use a "two wand" approach for that, which means you have to buy another wand and another mounting pillar from VPI. My 16.5 started life as a 16 and still works! (I have other machines, but can and still use the VPI on occasion). Keep your wand pads clean, clean your applicators scrupulously. 
The air compressor- you don't mean canned air, right, but a real compressor? Presumably, with appropriate oil and particulate filters? I have various compressors that I have used for the system, but use a Rocket Blaster- bulb duster thingie that you can buy for 10 or 12 bucks on line- the large size--to get rid of loose surface detritus before cleaning. Another tip- if the record is nasty dirty, don't go scrubbing on the first cleaning pass. Wash lightly without a lot of scrubbing or strong agitation, vacuum, clean the vacuum lips, and then if you are of the agitation/scrubbing school- do that, to avoid grinding the surface stuff into the record in the process of cleaning it. 
Whart, I am impressed by your attention to detail!  How do you go about cleaning the vacuum lips in a relatively easy but effective manner?
Toothbrush is fine. I also use a solution of very pure alcohol and lab water to clean all the brushes and applicators, and rinse with lab water after a cleaning session, but if it is a nasty record, i have other brushes set aside for those, that will not be reused until fully cleaned. 

Mark, my VPI came with a small brush, like a miniature bottle brush.  It has very stiff bristles and seems to be effective cleaning the pads on the vacuum tube.  I use that every 2-3 records when cleaning several, depending on how dirty the records.

Thank you everyone!  This is all valuable insight.  I have not been a very detail oriented record cleaner.  Time to buckle down!  Thanks again.
Perhaps my HW17 has a slightly stronger vacuum sucker than does the 16.5, but I find that my LPs are very nearly bone dry after vacuum.  I usually just wave them around in the air for a minute or two before re-packaging them, always using a new envelope.  (Lately I've realized how important it is to discard the old envelope, no matter how nicely preserved it may be.)

I clean the velvet pad mostly by flicking the visible residue off using my fingernail, on the premise that if it looks clean, it is clean enough. I do that after each LP.
Thank you guys!  now I have something else to worry about when using my VPI-16.5... But million thanks for 185 degrees tip, I should have read the manual!!  Personally, I was always more concerned about the just cleaned side of LP being flipped onto the VPI platter and picking up rubbed-off dirt from not-yet washed side. I used two platter mats: "dirty" and "clean", at least until I bought a rubber mat with zillion mini-pyramids on its surface.
I've had a 16.5 for years. I put some fluid on the record, rotate 2 revolutions with brush and fluid, then 2 more revolution to dry, and I have to tell you, my records are dry! 
The one important thing I see missing here , is not if your machine is drying your records but no mention of a rinse after the cleaning.  Probably at least as important in the process as any other step is.
I wish I still had an access to Scanning Electron Microscope to check if Rinsing step is actually necessary. I use deionized 18MOhm water but always wonder if some non-ionic detergent (I use Triton X-100) should be added to it?... 
One telltale may be how water behaves on a record surface after it has been cleaned and dried. I suppose if you had access to a lab that could identify chemicals traces in suspension, you could measure the "pure water" first to get a baseline reading, then put a little such pure water on records that have been cleaned by different methods (rinse v no rinse), let it soak a bit, then draw it off and measure what’s in the water. Someone with scientific experience or training in chemistry could probably suggest a better, more accurate way. Have not researched what such lab tests would cost, or whether it is common for industry or bio-tech facilities to have such devices and how accurate such testing would be. If there is a scientist who knows, perhaps they can share their thoughts?
My non-scientific answer is that I don’t want to leave chemical residue on the record and to the extent a couple spins on a conventional vacuum RCM dries but does not entirely remove such residue, the rinse step gives you another shot at that.
My impression of "one steps" is that they are either for convenience or for use in machines that have reservoirs that apply fluid (which is also really about convenience).
I suspect that a lot of the current cleaning fluids aren’t chemical heavy anyway, and are mostly pure water with some surfactant to break surface tension and some mild detergent effect, perhaps with the addition of alcohol (which is often identified as an option by companies like AIVS).
The only thought I have about the ’who cares- i can’t hear it’ is this: if you are young enough, and stay with the medium, your system will likely improve; the second consideration is long term preservation and the possible effect of leaving vestiges of chemical in poly-type sleeves. Is cleaning one of the reasons people experience bag rash, i.e. an interaction between material on the record and the non-paper inner liner? Vinyl records seemed to endure pretty well as a stable medium without cleaning or fancy inners, leaving aside user abuse, kludgey tonearms/"needles" or low grade cleaning sprays or wipes offered in the past. The US Library of Congress has in its archival practices suggested that a rinse step is advisable. I certainly see no harm in it. On the other hand:
-the purity of the water in the "one step" may be higher than the purity of the "rinse water" so there may be a tradeoff: some minute traces of chemical residue v mineral or organic stuff left by the rinse water- which one is worse?
I recently pulled a record out I hadn’t listened to in decades, and judging by the inner-- an old Discwasher VRP--it was probably cleaned on my VPI back in the ’80s, with who knows what fluid. The record looked and played great, and I didn’t re-clean it using all of my current fancy cleaning gear.
Quote "Has2be, do you even rinse when you are using a "1 step" formula?"

wasn't trying to ruffle your  feathers .
Been doing vinyl since the late sixties and in the very
early eighties I sprung for a Loricraft RC. Even as good
as it is and with trying first hand the so called one step
cleaners, a rinse after the clean showed some particulate
and less clear pure water than what went on the surface.
If its convenience that is your priority , by all means a good one will fit your needs. No argument.
If you want a cleaner groove with less particulate gunk
and the One step cleaner that gunk has arguably absorbed,
then a rinse or two works for that. A good USB microscope
can and does easily confirm the difference.
A lot of it is directly related to the condition of the records and
the difference between what you may of owned from new,
and the unknown handling and condition of the grooves as
to what they were exposed to organically and worse mechanically from improperly set up arms and cartridges.

I was only offering what I have found to be true with the experience of trying most ways to balance convenience with
results. Sorry if that's a problem for you........