Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

ORECK - The business, the history, the machine, the man and related.

(Below: Oreck 1979 to 2008)

  < yr. 1979  < yr. 5/2008

Just wrote:

Just,

Dave can make his vacuum work or look any way he wants, but for me, 30 years and no major face lift/s make’s it a tired looking product.  I understand his lightweight-ness strategies, and that’s fine, but until his vacuums win pick-up ratings, there is room for improvement.

.

Why does he have to innovate?  He doesn't.  Does Dave have all of life’s mechanical cleaning problems solved in his products?  Dyson came from nowhere and has shown there’s plenty to innovate and plenty of money to be made.

.

I do believe there are a great many good Oreck dealers out there too.         DIB

Just wrote:
Hi Just,

Not to derail from the original Oreck-related discussion but since you mentioned Kirby I must also point out that they are another manufacturer with the same problem, unwillingness to update and improve the design.  In many ways we could say the Kirby is the polar opposite of the Oreck; the Kirby a good amount of power and does an impressive job of cleaning (especially with the Micron Magic cloth bags), but is heavy and awkward to carry.  There has to be a way to reduce the weight and overall bulk without cheapening the cleaner; Royal has used durable aluminum bodies for years and they have always been considerably lighter than that of a Kirby, even before TechDrive was introduced.  Oreck is indeed a very lightweight machine, however, it is incapable of anything more than surface cleaning as we all know.  Ironically, both *share* some limitations as well, namely a direct air path through the fan and a belt that has to be replaced periodically (although I will admit that the Kirby's belt is a breeze to change for those who know what they are doing so that is a non-issue for the most part).

Is there anything wrong with a theoretically tried-and-true design?  No, except for the fact that times change and innovative "new" designs are brought out, eventually superseding the old design(s) in either convenience, performance, durability, longevity, or all of what I just mentioned.  

I will be adding to this thread and responding to others later when I get a chance to read through the rest. 

-MH

By the way, I have stopped into Oreck stores before and I will attest to the fact that they *are* very friendly and courteous. 

DC18 wrote:

Hello DC18:

You're welcome.

Carmine D.

Hello Tom:

I take exception to your categorization of Oreck as a rug surface cleaner.  It is not.  The proof is in separating the rug fibers and loop after vacuuming with the ORECK on a regular bases as I have done.  The rug fibers and backing are clean and no debris is left in and behind.  Why?  Read on.

If you are separating the rug fibers by grooming, which we all know ORECK does, then the suction in the ORECK cleans the dirt embedded in the carpet and rugs.  Another proof if needed:  Follow after the ORECK with a HOOVER WT that has an embedded dirt finder.  Watch the light stay green as you pass over the ORECK's rug groomed areas.  I can't say the same for other vacuums including your fave the DC07.  Which I owned and used on the same carpets as the ORECK.

I would say that the exceptionally high shag is the only rug type that the above is probably not true of ORECK.  Then the user needs a vacuum with a rug height adjustment to clean and groom properly.  Where did I hear the latter?  From an ORECK store manager/staff recently in LV.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Oftentimes, makers innovate by making slight modifications so as to extend the patent period longer when it is due to expire.  Not really due to their need to innovate to be better.  But I'm sure you are already aware of this fact.

With regard to the number of ORECK stores nationwide, the most recent number [early this year] is 500 and growing.  I've underestimated in some recent posts.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Bertha,

It should be obvious that separation of rug fibers are irrelevant to the performance of a particular machine, but I guess to you it is not.  If that were the case we would all still be using carpet sweepers because we wouldn't know any better (sort of like those who use Orecks).   Yes chances are the Oreck will have enough power to pick up *some* dirt from the rug, but not much.  The point is that it understandably takes a lot more for the rug to actually *be* clean than it does to simply *look* clean.  If one were to follow up with a Kirby, Miele, DYSON, or any other good full-sized cleaner after first using an Oreck, those cleaners would pull up quite a bit of embedded dirt and grit out that the Oreck missed.  There's a fine line between being light weight yet powerful, which is why the DYSON DC24 is and will continue to be a good competitor against the Oreck.

And as I've said before, the so-called "Dirt Sensors" are also not a clear indicator of a machine's performance, even CR has mentioned this in past articles.  The rug may not necessarily be clean, it's just that the WindTunnel isn't detecting any dirt from it.  Just because the Hoover WindTunnel shows the rug is "clean" doesn't mean the others will, the dirt is still very much there.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

I find it very amusing that Carmine has always contended that following behind a previouusly  vacuumed area  with a different brand will still result in dirt being picked up.  Now he is saying that a Hoover will not pick up behind an Oreck. 

I tried and XL21.  The carpet looked beautifully groomed.  However, following behind it with a DC07 produced prodigious amounts of dirt.

I am no pro, however I have always contended that an excelent brush will only bring dirt to  the surface and scatter it if the vacuum has poor suction.

Hello Tom:

You can call me by any name you please.  I KNOW who I am.  So do all who post here.  Because I've always used my name and true identity on all vacuum Forums for over 10 years.  I'm proud of who I am, unlike you, who hides behind names on Forums. 

If I take my well working ORECK and go over the same area as you with any vacuum you use, I will pick up more rug dirt.  Why?  A rug can hold its weight in dirt and still look clean.  That's the reason I vacuum daily, having pets and grand children too.  And the ORECK is ideal for daily usage.   

I also disagree with you on the embedded dirt finding lights.  If the HOOVER WT is working properly, new belt, bag and filter, the readings are accurate and precise.  The bone of contention with Consumer Reports with this feature is that oftentimes the vacuums are not well maintained by users.  This leads to false/irrelevant readings.  Right?  That's why I said to look into the deep rug fibers by separating with your fingers.  Especially after using an ORECK regularly.  You'll see the fibers and backing are clean with no tell tale signs of dirt left in and behind.  If the rug is still dirty, you can see the dirt in the fibers and backing.  That's the best proof!  Easy even for you to do.

Keep your facts on focus and straight or I will for you.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HARDSELL:

I agree with part of what you said and I highlighted it.  ORECK has an excellent brush roll and turns at high speeds.  With that combination, it draws the embedded dirt up to the surface where little or no suction will carry it into the vacuum.  The latter is the principle on which non-electric carpet sweepers worked for cleaning surface dirt on rugs and floors.  Brush action.  They had no suction at all.  Add the rug suction power of most full sized uprights of yester year to the ORECK brush roll, and you have the 2 key ingredients for a good rug cleaner and groomer.  Add a huge paper bag, like the ORECK's, and you the third factor for the making of an excellent upright.  That's why ORECK has the lock on the market and others can only copy.

Recall, if you can, that ORECK specifically matches its rug cleaning performance against the dyson DC07 and DC14.  Both of which you owned.  You didn't like the DC14.  But did the DC07.  Both have the same identical brush roll.  And power!  That leads me to doubt your findings not just for the dysons but ORECK too.

Visit your local ORECK store and YOU can perform the rug cleaning tests using the ORECK and dysons DC07/DC14.  Try the kapoc test.  This has been an industry standard test since Tom Gasko was walking on all fours in diapers and crying dyson.  ORECK will pick up most if not all the kapoc in 2 passes.  Forward and back.  Dyson will take 9 or 10 passes back and forth and still leave traces behind. 

Carmine D. 

Motorhead wrote:

Tom:

This is an absurdity.  If ORECK can pick up some dirt, it can pick up all.  It doesn't distinguish between what it can and can't pick up.  If it's only picking up some dirt, then the ORECK needs a new belt/bag.  They don't last forever.  These have to be changed, just like the dirt bin on the dyson has to be dumped frequently and the pre-post- motor filters have to washed/changed.  If you don't do the latter, dysons will only pick up some of the dirt too and not all. 

HARDSELL:

The same is true for carpet sweepers.  If you don't dump the dirt trays in these and they fill up [like bagless dirt bins], they don't pick up.  Regardless of how many passes you make back and forth.  

Carmine D.