Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

Model2 wrote:

My ORECK XL Classic has the wiper blade too on the rear of the sole plate that goes the length of the brush roll.  One pass forward is all that it takes to get anything/everything up and off the barefloor for the entire swath of the nozzle.  But as I've tried to tell HARDSELL many times, the trick to get the best performance from the ORECK is to turn it on.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

The HOOVER Handi-Sacs [with the bag clips for the top openings] were reusable papers that were very expensive, labor intensive, and messy.  They were standard equipment on two new HOOVER upright models offered in the USA: The HOOVER 61 [circa about 1949] and HOOVER 62 [early 50's].  Then they disappeared in favor of the disposable Type C papers on the HOOVER 63, 64 and all the bottom fill Convertibles.  But the HOOVER Handi-Sacs were still available for many years for customers who still had these bags in their H-61 and H-62.  Most customers hated them for the cost and the mess.  And vacuum repair shops offered work arounds to avoid the reusable papers in favor of a straight cloth bag/disposable paper. 

Carmine D.

Hoover's Hygienisacs pre-dated the Handi-Sacs by over a decade:

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

Among other things, it claimed to be an excellent hair dryer for women.  Maybe that's where dyson got the the idea for the Airblade

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

In all my years of the business [1949-1992] I never saw a hygiensac paper in use on any HOOVER upright [probably because it was an option and additional expense, not standard equipment].  Tho, I did see the advertisements, envelopes, and boxes that the bags came in.  All the HOOVER models of this vintage always came with the straight cloth bags.  Starting in the 1950's and after many were converted by vacuum stores to the replacement zipper with disposable F&G bags, as I mentioned with the Handi-sacs.  The hygiensacs were consumer duds just like the handi-sacs that followed.  Not HOOVER's finest hour by any means.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

The concept's really quite amusing, especially the notion that sticking the plastic handle through the open door of a gas-oven to obtain warmth was a good idea!

Venson wrote:
Venson,

Do you see the similarities?        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIB,

Of course I noted the similarities even though the Air-Way was on the market way before Lord Dyson was born.  Did you notice that no one is suing Dyson?

Best,

Venson

Venson,

Implying Dyson is lawsuit happy?...
Sir James has never sued anyone that did not have it comin.  It’s a beautiful thing when the little guy is protected by laws and that these laws and fair minded juries can bring wealthy thieving bullies to their knees.

Dyson sees value whereas his competitors do not...
If the Airway had any design or utility patent protection on this nozzle, the patent[s] would of expired around 1945.   Typical of the innovative lazy manufacturers... they dismiss good ideas (see no value in the old Airway nozzle) whereas Dyson resurrects it, improves it, applies it in a different way, proves an untapped market and proves it to be a money maker.  And only then do the lazy make their somewhat-steerable's, which turn out to be based on 1930's technologies.  Pathetic.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
DIB, come on already.  I was just teasing you a bit.  HOWEVER . . .

I do think Dyson -- especially in light of recent reports claiming the company is attempting to bring others like LG to court for product that isn't even on the market yet -- may well be lawsuit happy.  As well, may I ask how can Dyson be worth the 1.5 billion dollars you estimate and still be "the little guy" in court?  Anyway . . .

In the instance of the Air-Way it isn't about Dyson who, by the way also produces "non-steerables".  It's all about Air-Way.  Thinking selling jargon, the Air-Way apparently was the first "two-motor system" vacuum and, if you will, the first maker of a "power nozzle".  As earlier mentioned, I am surprised that adaptations and, pardon the pun, new spins didn't catch on much earlier in the game despite the Hoover sent mentioned in an earlier post.  Though a separate device of some advantage, a good number of years passed before we saw Electrolux or the maker of Sears and Whirlpool vacuums provide canisters with practical power nozzles and even years more for two-motor clean-air uprights to show up.  And there's been a definite advantage in both.

I hardly see many of what I view as illustrious vacuum makers as lazy.  Electrolux lazy?  This is the company whose attachment design made best use of little old 500 watt or less motors.  Was the company also lazy when it came up with that little but very sophisticated mechanical device that shut the machine off when the bag was full?  The components weren't much.  Just a rubber diaphragm, a little tubing and a lever. Anyone could have thought of it I guess.

In past, vacuum companies that wanted to succeed strove to develop product that was set apart from what the next guy made.  That is how we ended up with Hoovers, Rexairs, Compacts, Eurekas, Electroluxes, Filter Queens, Air-ways, Whirlpool/Kenmores, Kirbys, Bisons and countless other brands.

If in current times times there is evidence of laziness it is due to the greater desire to rake in cash than make good product.  Dyson is probably just as guilty of this as any other vacuum manufacturer.

Venson